At 01:44 01/07/21 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>In a message dated 2001-07-20 6:19:24 Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>writes:
>
> > You can find a better way to do furigana, and an answer to many
> > of your questions, at http://www.w3.org/TR/ruby (the Ruby Annotation
> > Recommendation).
>
>Patrick's original question concerned an undocumented, but arguably legal,
>way of using the Unicode interlinear annotation characters.
>
>Martin's response makes it sound as though the annotation characters have the
>Plane 14 nature: they were brought into this world with strong warnings never
>to use them, but instead to use an equivalent mechanism in HTML, XML, or some
>other higher-level protocol.
As far as I understand the history of these characters and their
current use, I think this is true. The following may give more information:
http://www.w3.org/TR/unicode-xml/#Interlinear
>TUS 3.0 says (p. 326) that the use of annotation characters is "strongly
>discouraged without prior agreement between the sender and the receiver." Is
>this as strong a statement as the one in Unicode 3.1 concerning language
>tags, which states that they are not to be used at all except in the presence
>of specific protocols?
The language here is slightly different, and I have no idea whether
the intent was exactly the same, but in any case it seems that the
intents were very close to each other.
Regards, Martin.
