From: Doug Ewell (doug@ewellic.org)
Date: Mon Sep 07 2009 - 20:50:46 CDT
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 | http://www.ewellic.org RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14 | ietf-languages @ http://is.gd/2kf0s
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Sep 07 2009 - 20:52:45 CDT