From: Asmus Freytag (email@example.com)
Date: Mon Jan 12 2009 - 04:28:51 CST
On 1/11/2009 10:27 PM, Christopher Fynn wrote:
> On 05/01/2009, David Starner <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> The market pressures to support other
>> standards didn't just disappear and people expect to be able to
>> roundtrip their information through Unicode without problems.
> If this is what the policy is now then Unicode & ISO 10646 need to
> clearly state somewhere that characters in other "standards" -
> pre-existing or new official or de-facto - are now legitimate
> canidates for encoding for interoperability reasons. And what the
> limitations on this policy are.
That would not be as helpful as it might seem. Hard limitations are not
enforcible in a competitive environment, and stating limitations that
are not enforceable is not really useful. Making no guarantees, but
leaving the possibility of "exceptional cases" is the right policy. It
leaves anyone contemplating the creation and promulgation of new
character sets with uncertainty whether these sets will turn out to be
dead ends, while not precluding that Unicode can flexibly handle those
situations that require coverage as demonstrated on a case-by-case basis.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jan 12 2009 - 04:30:42 CST