From: Asmus Freytag (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sat Jan 03 2009 - 23:42:49 CST
On 1/3/2009 1:16 AM, Michael Everson wrote:
> 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.
I simply follow the definition. See, for example the glossary:
"/Compatibility Character. /
A character that would not have been encoded except for compatibility
and round-trip convertibility with other standards"
If you emember that the word standard as used in that definition is not
restricted to international standards, or formal standards, but includes
de-facto standards as well, then saying "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." is merely another way of saying that the
inclusion of the character depends on whether it's needed "for
compatibility and round-trip convertibility with other standards".
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Jan 03 2009 - 23:46:20 CST