Re: Request clarification on disunification based on different character properties

From: Doug Ewell (
Date: Mon Sep 07 2009 - 20:50:46 CDT

  • Next message: Chris Fynn: "Re: Run-time checking of fonts for Sinhala support"

    Asmus Freytag <asmusf at ix dot netcom dot com> wrote:

    > We've now seen why suggestions for revision of the P&P text are best
    > approached very cautiously, and only after a clear understanding of
    > the impact of such changes. The document distills over a decade of
    > experience of major participants in the character encoding effort, and
    > it is primarily written for an audience of experts (in other words,
    > delegates to WG2) to help ground their decisions in well-understood
    > precedents. It's not a cookbook for deciding character encoding
    > questions by rote.

    I agree that any proposed changes to the P&P document should be
    evaluated very carefully. I do wish, however, that the document would
    be updated to cover the newly expanded meaning of "compatibility
    character" as used to justify the emoji, that is, a character encoded
    for compatibility with potentially any existing private-use repertoire,
    even a very recently defined one, and even in cases where the character
    has no "normal" (non-compatibility) equivalent in the standard. It
    would have been helpful to know this a year ago.

    Doug Ewell  |  Thornton, Colorado, USA  |
    RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14  |  ietf-languages @

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Sep 07 2009 - 20:52:45 CDT