"Mark Davis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Implementations that claim conformance to Unicode 3.2 normalization may > not produce identical results in all cases, and may not produce *correct* > normalizations, because versions of UAX #15 prior to 4.1.0 have been > internally inconsistent.
We seem to disagree on this. I believe Unicode 3.2 was consistent. Only the non-normative sections was in conflict with the normative text. I admit an implementation would not meet some normalization invariants discussed in the document. But I don't believe the invariants were discussed as requirements on the implementation. > It would also be interesting to me to see the level of stability that is > guaranteed by the other organizations. I know that there are W3C > Recommendations that do not maintain perfect stability. How about the IETF? > Is there a policy that any RFC that obsoletes another RFC is required to be > absolutely -- bug-for-bug -- backwards compatible? For the IETF, my understanding is that the policy is to make whatever changes works best for people. Including breaking backwards compatibility when appropriate. The stability guarantee place the UTC in a different seat, though. Thanks, Simon
