From: Michael Everson (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sat Jan 03 2009 - 03:16:58 CST
On 2 Jan 2009, at 22:55, Asmus Freytag wrote:
> Compatibility characters may need to be encoded for
> interoperability, despite failing the normal tests for inclusion as
> characters. That has been true in some way or other of all
> characters encoded for compatibility so far. Depending on the nature
> of the compatibility, the characters *may* obtain a compatibility
> decomposition, but that is not universally so. The main criteria
> whether to include some character as compatibility character are
> based on whether having it encoded is necessary for interoperability
> with non-Unicode based plain text protocols.
Seems to me that "compatibility characters" means whatever you want it
to mean at a given moment.
Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Jan 03 2009 - 03:21:00 CST