On 25/08/2003 01:13, Marco Cimarosti wrote:
Peter Kirk wrote:
Well, the situation with Hebrew sof pasuq is almost identical to that
for Greek and Arabic question marks, except that it is functionally a
full stop not a question mark, so I can't see any reason other than
prejudice for omitting it from the list.
Well, I had a much better reason than prejudice: ignorance. :-)
OK, understood! Actually I had more problems with Mark's refusal to
extend your list.
Well, the requirement for an invariable set seems to be part of the "rules
of the game" with this UTR, so I'll stick to it.
Well, I was taking a rather different approach: noting that UTR31 is so
far only a "proposed draft", I was suggesting a change to the rules of
the game.
I guess that this requirement is due to backward compatibility issues. If
version X of a certain programming language accepts identifier "foo:bar"
(where ":" is a certain mark), it is not acceptable that version X+1 of the
same language treats the same sequence as a syntax error: that would make
existing source code in that language potentially unusable.
But the other way round is less of a problem. So I am suggesting that
for now we define all punctuation characters except for those with
specifically defined operator functions, also all undefined characters,
as giving a syntax error. This makes it possible to define additional
punctuation characters, even those in so far undefined scripts like
Tifinagh, as valid operators in future versions.
--
Peter Kirk
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (personal)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (work)
http://www.qaya.org/
