From: Khaled Hosny (khaledhosny@eglug.org)
Date: Tue Jan 08 2008 - 10:27:32 CST
On Sat, Jan 05, 2008 at 08:53:31PM -0800, John Hudson wrote:
> arno wrote:
>
>> If my proposal will be accepted there will be a period for everybody to
>> raise objections before it become binding.
>
> Well and good, but Unicode has been bitten before by this kind of thing,
> e.g. in changing the mirrored property of a character, only to find that it
> unexpectedly broke some existing software. Unfortunately, we can't rely on
> invested parties responding to public review periods, because sometimes
> potential problems are not anticipated: they are only identified at the
> point when they become actual problems. So I suspect, given options, the
> UTC will tend toward the safer path. Of course, if you can suggest a
> technical benefit of revising the properties of U+0621 over encoding a new
> character, that might override concerns about breaking existing
> implementations.
>
I think avoiding the security concerns of having to, almost, similar
hamzas might be a good reason for one revised hamza over two ones.
-- Khaled Hosny
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jan 08 2008 - 10:30:49 CST