Re: Stability Policy Update

From: Kenneth Whistler (
Date: Mon May 05 2008 - 17:20:33 CDT

  • Next message: Kenneth Whistler: "Re: Freedom to Normalise (was: US ballot comments re ARIB ideographs)"

    > > I'm not seeing the useful clarification here. The conditions are
    > > trivially true for any uncased character if you want to test the
    > > edge condition and assume X = Y, since an uncased character casemaps
    > > to itself.

    > If you allow X = Y to be valid for application of the rule, uncased in
    > version V then implies uncased in every version.

    O.k., I see your point. I think this comes down to an instance
    where the English expression of the principle was clear, but
    where turning it into a logical statement caused mischief because
    it does not rule out the X = Y case, even though most would consider
    that nonsensical for a "case pair".

    So the initial statement, "Two assigned characters form a case pair when..."
    is highly unlikely to be interpreted by any but the most perverse
    as applying to "two assigned characters that happen to actually
    be the *same* code point and which could then be considered to
    be a "case pair" only by lawyering it to death..."

    But in the logical expression, it probably makes sense to add
    the "where X != Y" restriction.


    > This is not what you want
    > to convey in the guarantee, and moreover later on you just pointed out that
    > it was not true. Having made this unintended deduction, the reader might
    > then dismiss the statement as false - especially if the reader were
    > jaundiced against Unicode, as some seem to be.
    > Richard.

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon May 05 2008 - 17:23:18 CDT