Re: No Invisible Character - NBSP at the start of a word

From: Asmus Freytag (
Date: Sun Nov 28 2004 - 17:03:37 CST

  • Next message: Peter Kirk: "Re: No Invisible Character - NBSP at the start of a word"

    At 10:10 AM 11/28/2004, Peter Kirk wrote:
    >And I will remember not to implement the official standard whenever I come
    >across such a note, but rather to avoid "mis-applied conservatism" by
    >following everyone else in breaking the standard.

    I would have phrased it as: "... in following everyone else in maintaining
    compatibility with existing practice."

    As I explained, in the part of my message you didn't copy, the existing
    practice in question involved characters that had a longstanding history
    predating Unicode. In this situation it makes little sense to expect that
    the characters behave one way if encoded in the legacy character set and
    another way if encoded in Unicode.

    Ideally the fact that the specification as written happened to contradict
    widespread legacy practice would have been noticed and raised much sooner.
    Such feedback, by the way, is welcome any time.

    >But if the UTC has already made a decision on this change, why is it
    >included in a current public review issue?

    It's a review of a decision by the UTC.

    >Is the public review genuine?


    >If someone makes an objection to this change, will it be considered?

    Yes - it will be considered on its merit. If frivolous, ill-formed,
    unintelligible, etc. it might not get a lot of consideration. If it is
    well-considered, brings solid new information, and makes a good case, it
    can result in the UTC overturning or modifying an earlier decision.

    Depending on the issue, the UTC is often interested in learning about
    information that would further support a decision it has taken - either so
    it can be added to the documentation, or so it reinforces and extends the
    rationale for it.

    >I have no objection to this change, but it does make me wonder if my
    >responses to other public review issues are in fact a waste of time
    >because the UTC has actually already decided the issue.

    Let me, in reply, just encourage you to focus your energy on submitting
    information that's relevant to improving the decisions made by the UTC.


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Nov 28 2004 - 17:05:18 CST