From: Asmus Freytag (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue Feb 01 2011 - 10:33:19 CST
On 2/1/2011 1:07 AM, Karl Pentzlin wrote:
> Am Dienstag, 1. Februar 2011 um 03:39 schrieb Ken Whistler:
> KW> So the issue I see is what actual *problem* is being addressed by such a
> KW> change? Is there an implementation issue, with something to be fixed? Or
> KW> is this just a tidiness concern?
> The latter, admittedly.
> - Karl
Sometimes, the impulse for tidiness can be misplaced, but in this case,
I think it's helping uncover a real rats' nest of inconsistent and
somewhat mind-boggling property assignments.
As part of the discussion you started, we've found:
1. Superscript characters are treated differently from subscript
characters for no apparent reason.
2. Subscript characters follow two different schemes.in assigning GC
3. Superscript characters follow two different schemes in assigning
4. Characters named CAPITAL (and showing a majuscule glyph) have
It's bad enough that these characters were spread all over the standard
based on the fear that they would be mis-implemented as a
super/subscript alphabet, but with the way the properties are assigned,
it's not even possible to collect them as a "set" based on common
To me it looks more and more like a bit of a mess that deserves to be fixed.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Feb 01 2011 - 10:37:42 CST