Simon Cozens wrote:
Simon Cozens wrote:
I think I've finished doing what I can with
docs/pdds/draft/pdd28_character_sets.pod for the time being.
Please have a look at it, and let me know if there's anything
wrong, anything unclear, anything missing or anything objectionable
about it
Warnock Warnock Warnock. Can I get a witness, even if it's "Looks good
but I don't understand it" or "Good luck, pal, but who do you think's
going to implement it?"?
1. Why is grapheme normalization form abbreviated as NFG rather than GNF?
2. If a character set is "officially a deprecated term" (by whom?),
won't our use of it cause problems down the road -- even if we currently
find it advantageous to use it "to mean the standard which defines both
a repertoire and a code"?
3. "A grapheme is our concept." Who is the we in "our"?
4. I'm very glad it's *not* written in "man-page terse."
