Re: Request clarification on disunification based on different character properties

From: Doug Ewell (
Date: Thu Aug 27 2009 - 00:26:26 CDT

  • Next message: Asmus Freytag: "Re: Request clarification on disunification based on different character properties"

    Shriramana Sharma <samjnaa at gmail dot com> wrote:

    > <quote>If a character disunification cannot be achieved by adding one
    > new character without requiring a change in very significant
    > properties of the existing character and without changing the
    > representative glyph or range of expected glyphs for the existing
    > character, then new characters will be added for each of the distinct,
    > specific letterforms required.</quote>
    > This positively confuses me. The text IMHO could have been clearer.
    > I understand: "If a proposed character that would disunify an existing
    > character differs from the existing character in very significant
    > properties, and the prevention of disunification would be only
    > possible by changing those significant properties of the existing
    > character, then that disunification is permitted".
    > Correct?

    I don't read it that way. I think the original text describes the
    situation with (say) Arabic, where it would not have been appropriate to
    repurpose the Arabic characters in the U+06xx block as isolate forms and
    add U+Fxxx presentation glyphs only for the other forms. I don't think
    your replacement text says that.

    Most of the text in the P&P document that is complicated, is complicated
    for a reason, and "simplifying" it carries the risk of changing the

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

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Aug 27 2009 - 00:30:09 CDT