Correct, that is what I was trying to say when I added the goodies.
Sorry it didn't come across that way. Let me go a bit deeper in what I
mean by compliance levels.
1. Unicode support is implemented and allows for same functionality as
with any other legacy encoding system. Detail: up to which Unicode
release this support is implemented.
2. Additional Unicode support is implemented and and offers the
following list of features beyond legacy encodings: [list of features],
for example ICU is fully implemented.
3. Full Unicode support is implemented - all characters can be
processed, all glyphs are available, and rendering complies to all
rules for each writing system. (I hope I used the correct terms here.)
I am most interested in step 1 most of the time, as it is the biggest
hurdle when I perform an assessment. When or if steps 2 & 3 are an
issue, the compliance testing gets complex on the one side, but on the
other side the teams implementing them are much more knowlegable and
can offer better compliance details. Tbh, I am not sure where to draw a
line between 2 & 3, I think it is a gray zone, rarely found today.
Dave
--- Barry Caplan <bcaplan@i18n.com> wrote:
> At 08:07 AM 7/25/2002 -0700, David Possin wrote:
> >After that we can add the chocolate sauce, the cherry, and the
> >sprinkles of Unicode. The special Unicode compliance tests are
> harder
> >to define and to perform, I agree. But in most cases these issues
> >haven't even been implemented yet.
>
>
> But isn't the reason someone would want to quantify compliance is
> precisely to find out what is implemented and what is not?
>
> Barry Caplan
> www.i18n.com
>
=====
Dave Possin
Globalization Consultant
www.Welocalize.com
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/locales/
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better
http://health.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Thu Jul 25 2002 - 10:07:16 EDT