Re: Compatibility Character (was: Re: Emoji: emoticons vs. literacy)

From: Doug Ewell (
Date: Wed Jan 14 2009 - 22:26:38 CST

  • Next message: Phillips, Addison: "RE: Compatibility Character (was: Re: Emoji: emoticons vs. literacy)"

    Kenneth Whistler <kenw at sybase dot com> wrote:

    >>> "/Compatibility Character. /
    >>> A character that would not have been encoded except for
    >>> compatibility and round-trip convertibility with other standards"
    > Yukka Korpela responded:
    >> It's a pseudo-definition.
    > Which is nonsense, I'm afraid. What Asmus cited is a descriptive
    > definition of the term, as used by the folks in the UTC
    > (past and current) who have developed and maintain the standard.

    That is indeed the glossary definition, and the first sentence of
    Section 2.3. However, the second sentence of Section 2.3 immediately
    goes on to add that they are "variants of characters that already have
    encodings as normal characters."

    So if the truncated definition as found in the glossary is the one the
    folks in the UTC have been using, then the presence of the following
    sentence is a bit misleading, and hopefully this will be clarified in
    the 6.0 book.

    Doug Ewell  *  Thornton, Colorado, USA  *  RFC 4645  *  UTN #14  ˆ

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 14 2009 - 22:29:58 CST