From: Doug Ewell (email@example.com)
Date: Thu Aug 27 2009 - 00:26:26 CDT
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".
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 http://www.ewellic.org http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages ˆ
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Aug 27 2009 - 00:30:09 CDT