Jony asked:
> I thought that the alphabetic presentation forms are deprecated, however
> they are not indicated as such in proplist.txt.
A formal deprecation of a Unicode character takes an explicit
decision by the UTC, and no such decision is on record for
the alphabetic presentation forms.
--K
> [Original Message]
> From: Jony Rosenne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> I thought that the alphabetic presentation forms are deprecated,
> however they are not indicated as such in proplist.txt.
Their use is discouraged for new Unicode text, but they are not
deprecated, just as ANGSTROM SIGN is not d
I thought that the alphabetic presentation forms are deprecated, however
they are not indicated as such in proplist.txt.
Jony
John Jenkins wrote concerning UNIHAN.TXT,
> BTW, in case anybody's wondering, I've been working with Andrew
> privately to get these issues resolved.
That's great! Maintaining such a huge database must be a huge chore.
The work that goes into UNIHAN.TXT is most appreciated. Although
Andrew
On Apr 8, 2004, at 04:29 PM, John Jenkins wrote:
On Apr 2, 2004, at 4:38 AM, Andrew C. West wrote:
For me 4.0.1 was a big disappointment. The much vaunted update of the
Unihan
database did not even clear up all the editorial errors in the
database, let
alone deal with the real problems of conten
On Apr 2, 2004, at 4:38 AM, Andrew C. West wrote:
For me 4.0.1 was a big disappointment. The much vaunted update of the
Unihan
database did not even clear up all the editorial errors in the
database, let
alone deal with the real problems of content, such as incorrect or
dubious
Mandarin, Canton
On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 15:49:53 -0800, Rick McGowan wrote:
>
> Unicode 4.0.1 has been released!
>
> The main new features in Unicode 4.0.1 are the following:
>
> 1. The first significant update of the Unihan Database (Unihan.txt)
> since Unicode 3.2.0, including a large number of fixes and
>
> > * Changed: bidi class of several characters
> Won't these fixes break applications out there? I.e., won't they turn
> previously conformant applications into non conformant ones?
And the other thing to understand about this particular change
is that it is the outcome of a years-long deba
Marco Cimarosti scripsit:
> So far, my understanding was that the normative properties of existing code
> points where "carved in stone".
Not all normative properties are immutable. A normative property is
simply one which you have to get right if you claim conformance to
that part of Unicode:
Rick McGowan wrote:
> Unicode 4.0.1 has been released! [...]
> The main new features in Unicode 4.0.1 are the following:
> [...]
> 3. Unicode Character Database:
> [...]
> * Changed: general category of U+200B ZERO WIDTH SPACE
> * Changed: bidi class of several characters
(If I am aski
Unicode 4.0.1 has been released! The data files and documentation are
final and posted on the Unicode site. For details, see the version page for
Unicode 4.0.1 at:
http://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode4.0.1/
Unicode 4.0.1 is an update version of the Unicode Standard. It adds no new
chara
11 matches
Mail list logo
