From: Asmus Freytag (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sat Jan 29 2011 - 12:23:42 CST
On 1/29/2011 6:01 AM, FrÃ©dÃ©ric Grosshans wrote:
> Le samedi 29 janvier 2011 Ã 01:38 -0800, Asmus Freytag a Ã©crit :
>> The localizability aspect won't help your argument here, because
>> has rejected earlier, and much more modest proposals for localizable
>> numeric punctuation, the *Decimal Separator* which would have been
>> equivalent to Period of Comma depending on locale. Unicode's mandate
>> therefore explicitly excludes localizable content.
> Just out of couriosity, when was it proposed/rejected ? I do not find
> the rejection in http://www.unicode.org/alloc/nonapprovals.html , where
> I think it would fit nicely.
Looks like it would. It was rather early in the process that the
proposal came. The decision was made to reject it. For punctuation it is
always tempting to encode based on function, because punctuation, more
than words, are parsed by software, in a way that requires making
distinctions. And many punctuation characters have a bewildering array
of meanings based on context.
The period is one of the worst.
Sentence ending, abbreviation mark,separator,decimal point, and the list
It was recognized early that this would be a bad idea.
Nowadays, with a better understanding of security issues, any character
that could be used for spoofing like that is out of the question.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Jan 29 2011 - 12:25:41 CST