From: Doug Ewell (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sun Sep 06 2009 - 21:45:35 CDT
"verdy_p" <verdy underscore p at wanadoo dot fr> wrote:
>> I haven't been following this thread too closely, so this is probably
>> out of context, but you need to be very careful if you are suggesting
>> changes to character properties on the basis that some existing
>> software doesn't follow the rules and display the characters
> Word and IE are probably based on the same default Windows script
> engine. I don't know exactly what Qt does, but it probably uses the
> default script rendering engine from the underlying OS.
> So may be it's Windows that needs to be updated. So the match is won 3
> vs. 1 (only Windows).
> It's strange that you consider that the majority of softwares don't
> follow the rules and display the characters properly. It gives some
> hints about what are "the rules"? Is that Windows that gives them ?
If you mean me, you need to re-read what I wrote. It was Shriramana
Sharma who said that some existing software (not necessarily a majority)
didn't display the characters correctly. I am sure some does and some
doesn't, but that wasn't my point. My point was that none of this is a
justification for suggesting changes to Unicode character properties.
Sharma replied (more than two weeks ago) that he had other
justifications, and so I dropped the matter.
-- Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA | http://www.ewellic.org RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14 | ietf-languages @ http://is.gd/2kf0s
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Sep 06 2009 - 21:49:08 CDT