From: Ken Whistler (kenw@sybase.com)
Date: Mon Jan 31 2011 - 20:39:39 CST
On 1/31/2011 5:22 AM, Karl Pentzlin wrote:
> 1. Is there a specific reason that Ll was retained for the "older"
> characters?
Yes and no. Yes, if you consider that "Nobody asked for them to be changed"
is a specific reason. No, if you consider that "Nobody had a substantial
reason that they evoked as requiring that the existing values be
retained" is
not a specific reason to *retain* them.
> 2. Is it a good idea to propose to change Ll to Lm for the "older"
> characters, just for uniformity?
It depends.
I know, I know... people on this list would rather prefer a nice simple
answer to
such questions.
But mucking with character properties involving casing is dangerous, because
the tentacles extend beyond what is immediately obvious, so it is very
easy to run afoul of unintended consequences. (I'll elaborate in the next
note.)
So the issue I see is what actual *problem* is being addressed by such a
change? Is there an implementation issue, with something to be fixed? Or
is this just a tidiness concern?
> 3. If additional Latin subscript small letters are proposed, is
> Lm the preferred General Category value?
>
O.k. on that one there is a clear answer: Yes.
--Ken
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jan 31 2011 - 20:44:21 CST