From: Ben Monroe (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue Oct 30 2007 - 06:04:13 CST
On 10/30/07, John H. Jenkins <email@example.com> wrote:
> On Oct 29, 2007, at 6:28 PM, Andrew West wrote:
> > On 29/10/2007, Peter Constable <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> >> I guess I assumed that that was never intended to provide a
> >> substitute for encoding the characters needed for Zhuang text -- it
> >> would be a terrible way to represent Zhuang text, though I suppose
> >> you can argue (as you have done) that it's valid.
> > I'm sure that John has never suggested that IDS sequences should be a
> > substitute for encoding, merely that given what the Unicode Standard
> > currently says, it would be a feasible interim solution.
> TUS is most emphatic on this point: An IDS is *not* the same thing as
> encoding. It should be considered a better-than-nothing stop-gap
> until something appropriate comes along (either an encoded character
> or a registered variation sequence). I suppose that a text in say
> Zhuang could use a custom font to hide the fact that most of it
> consists of IDSs, but in such a case Unicode explicitly warns that no
> operation other than display-related ones will likely work. Using an
> IDS in running text is a hack.
Considering the rejected characters, "until" does not seem appropriate.
For such IDS is the only option. And not much of an option either
since very few environments can actually render it.
<U+2FF5 U+9580 U+9F8D> ÛÍ
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Oct 30 2007 - 06:06:44 CST