From: Peter Constable (email@example.com)
Date: Sat Jan 10 2009 - 12:20:28 CST
From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com] On Behalf Of Christopher Fynn
>> ... how do you define character identity?
>> ... how do you know they are not mere *glyph
>> variants* of the character FLEDGELING?? Having had assigned different
>> private JIS-codes in the operators' private standard does not make
>> them different characters, as we've seen it with preexisting standards
>> of Arabic (having a codepoints for every positional variant) or the
>> previously cited Chinese national standard using PUA for precomposed
>> Tibetan glyphs!
> BTW This is not hypothetical, there are already cell phones available in
> Tibet which use a pre-composed Tibetan character set:
And all of those pre-composed elements can be represented using existing Unicode characters with reliable round-trip-ability. So, we won't be needing to encode those as separate characters in Unicode (just in case anybody was wondering).
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Jan 10 2009 - 12:23:17 CST