From: verdy_p (email@example.com)
Date: Mon Sep 07 2009 - 19:35:58 CDT
> De : "Asmus Freytag"
> On 9/7/2009 5:50 AM, verdy_p wrote:
> >> De : "Shriramana Sharma"
> >> A : "firstname.lastname@example.org"
> >> Copie à :
> >> Objet : Request clarification on disunification based on different character properties
> >> Hello. Again the disunification question. P 29 of the P&P document:
> >> 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.
> To that end Philippe proposes:
> > "If a character unification cannot be maintained without changing very significant properties of the existing
> > character and without changing the representative glyph or range of expected glyphs for the existing character,
> > new characters will be added for each of the distinct, specific letterforms required."
> Which is an entirely different statement.
> Proposals should focus on making a case for a particular encoding change
> on their own merits, not by arguing chapter and verse from the P&P.
This was not really a proposal: but that's exactly how I can understand the sentence as it is written. I've not
proposed any change in the longer discussed policy. But it remains that the style of this sentence is really
ambiguous and self-contradicting for the two reasons I gave and that you have not commented.
My sentence ("quoted" above) is much less important than these two points you did not quote. Anyway, the ambiguous
and self-contradicting sentence in TUS (which I still think that it is incorrectly written) is analyzed and
discussed more in the rest of the TUS section.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Sep 07 2009 - 19:37:38 CDT