RE: Arabic encoding model (alas, static!)

From: Peter Constable (
Date: Wed Jul 06 2005 - 11:27:00 CDT

  • Next message: Clark Cox: "Re: Missing capital H from Unicode range (see 1E96)"

    > From: []
    On Behalf
    > Of

    > Could I then see the documented and minuted rationale for using a
    static (non-
    > productive) Arabic character encoding model? What were the issues and
    risks the
    > WG2 looked at before making its decision not to encode combining
    arabic three dots,
    > two dots, etc.? Or did it just follow what the UTC had decided for it?

    I'm sure it did not follow UTC, since you're asking about a decision
    that I believe would have been taken back around 1989 or so before WG2
    and UTC were interacting.

    > a series
    > of emails among the myriads of archived emails is not a UTC decision,
    I would take).

    No, it is not.


    Peter Constable

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 06 2005 - 11:28:01 CDT