John Cowan wrote on 06/27/2003 08:24:35 AM: > The IETF has an explicit contract with Unicode: "We' > ll use your normalization algorithm if you promise NEVER, NEVER to change > the normalization status of a single character." Unicode has already > broken that promise four times, so its credibility is shaky.
Yeah, but what I don't get is that IETF doesn't set anything in stone until there are working implementations, but Unicode's canonical combining classes have to be set in stone for IETF's benefit before there are working implementations. I just have a hard time understanding that. > So far I have not heard any compelling objections to CGJ except that > invisible characters are fuggly. I just sent a message discussing this. - Peter --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Constable Non-Roman Script Initiative, SIL International 7500 W. Camp Wisdom Rd., Dallas, TX 75236, USA Tel: +1 972 708 7485
