RE: Unicode Stability

From: Jony Rosenne (rosennej@qsm.co.il)
Date: Wed Mar 02 2005 - 11:41:21 CST

  • Next message: Peter Constable: "RE: Unicode Stability"

    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: unicode-bounce@unicode.org
    > [mailto:unicode-bounce@unicode.org] On Behalf Of Peter Constable
    > Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 4:56 PM
    > To: Unicode Discussion
    > Subject: RE: Unicode Stability
    >
    >
    > > From: unicode-bounce@unicode.org [mailto:unicode-bounce@unicode.org]
    > On
    > > Behalf Of Michael Everson
    > > Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 3:22 AM
    > > To: Unicode Discussion
    > > Subject: RE: Unicode Stability
    > >
    > > At 06:46 +0200 2005-03-02, Jony Rosenne wrote:
    > >
    > > >>"Stability" in a standard does not mean that the standard never
    > > >>changes. It means that, as much as possible, it does not change in
    > > >>a way that causes existing implementations or data to break.
    > > >
    > > >The recently accepted proposals for Hebrew do just that,
    > they change
    > the
    > > >meaning of existing data.
    > >
    > > That is true of any disunification.
    >
    > No, Michael, don't take his bait. The proposals accepted for Hebrew
    > don't change the meaning of data. The only issue is that the qamats
    > qatan can't be implemented in existing or new fonts without
    > awkwardness.
    > But as a font implementer I take it as fundamental that I
    > cannot change
    > fonts in a way that alters existing documents, precisely so that the
    > meaning of existing data is not affected.
    >
    > Jony's claim is simply incorrect: meaning of existing Hebrew
    > data is not
    > changed by the recently-accepted Hebrew proposals. The only thing that
    > poses a risk to existing data is having implementers do the
    > wrong thing
    > when they update their products, but that is always the case.
    >

    My claim is that together with Qamats Qatan there should have been also
    Qamats Gadol. Without it, the same Unicode can mean either "ambiguous"
    Qamats or Qamats Gadol, and there is no way to know which was intended. For
    instance, if you have a piece of text without any Qamats Qatan, you cannot
    tell whether all the Qamats in it just happened to be Qamats Gadol, or the
    author had intended the ambiguous meaning.

    Another example is cut and paste from a number of sources, when some make
    the distinction and some do not.

    I have yet to read an answer to this issue.

    Yes, it is true of any disunification, when it is incomplete.

    Jony

    >
    >
    > Peter Constable
    >
    >
    >
    >

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Mar 02 2005 - 11:43:01 CST