On Tue, 19 Jun 2001, Marco Cimarosti wrote:
> Peter Constable wrote:
> > Can anyone think of other examples of informative properties
> > that are so
> > because the property is typical but not true for all languages?
>
>[snip]
I arrived late to this discussion. Is "culturally correct" sor
Peter Constable wrote:
> Can anyone think of other examples of informative properties
> that are so
> because the property is typical but not true for all languages?
Is it stretching things too much to say that glyphs (the representative
glyphs as published in TUS) are informative character prop
>Well, not exactly. "It's normative" *means* that xyz. But "It's normative"
>*because* the Unicode Standard says so, which in turn is because the
>UTC voted that it be so.
>
>*Why* they voted so may be an interesting historical question in
>particular instances, but it may be beyond the necessiti
>> But normative explicitly does *not* mean unchangeable.
>
>It quite specifically means that others can use it and reference it.
Anyone
>knows you cannot build a house on a shifting foundation, which is why
making
>something "normative" should be something reserved for things that one is
>*not*
Peter continued:
> Indeed: e.g. that is true for the Unicode 1.0 Name property. My question,
> though, is whether there are some properties that are informative because
> they may be typical for most languages but not true for all. It was always
> my impression that that was the reason for case m
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On 06/15/2001 06:29:51 PM "Michael \(michka\) Kaplan" wrote:
> >Why be more specific then there are a lot of people who think they might
> >possibly have made TOO MUCH normative and do not want to make things
> >unchangeable that might be in error or might need to chan
On 06/15/2001 06:28:34 PM Kenneth Whistler wrote:
>Peter asked:
>
>> It used to be that one could describe informative properties saying,
"some
>> properties are valid for most languages but not all and so are
informative,
>> such as case mappings".
>
>This never really was the case, since from
On 06/15/2001 06:29:51 PM "Michael \(michka\) Kaplan" wrote:
>> Can anyone give me a specific example of why Line Breaking or East Asian
>> Width properties aren't normative?
>
>Why be more specific then there are a lot of people who think they might
>possibly have made TOO MUCH normative and do
Peter asked:
> It used to be that one could describe informative properties saying, "some
> properties are valid for most languages but not all and so are informative,
> such as case mappings".
This never really was the case, since from the moment that the UTC started
posting informative propert
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Can anyone give me a specific example of why Line Breaking or East Asian
> Width properties aren't normative?
Why be more specific then there are a lot of people who think they might
possibly have made TOO MUCH normative and do not want to make things
unchangeable tha
10 matches
Mail list logo
