Nicely put.
A./
On 6/3/2014 12:09 AM, "Martin J. Dürst" wrote:
On 2014/06/03 07:08, Asmus Freytag wrote:
On 6/2/2014 2:53 PM, Markus Scherer wrote:
On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 1:32 PM, David Starner <prosfil...@gmail.com
<mailto:prosfil...@gmail.com>> wrote:
I would especially discourage any web browser from handling
these; they're noncharacters used for unknown purposes that are
undisplayable and if used carelessly for their stated purpose, can
probably trigger serious bugs in some lamebrained utility.
I don't expect "handling these" in web browsers and lamebrained
utilities. I expect "treat like unassigned code points".
Expecting them to be treated like unassigned code points shows that
their use is a bad idea: Since when does the Unicode Consortium use
unassigned code points (and the like) in plain sight?
I can't shake the suspicion that Corrigendum #9 is not actually solving
a general problem, ...
I have to fully agree with Asmus, Richard, Shawn and others that the
use of non-characters in CLDR is a very bad and dangerous example.
However convenient the misuse of some of these codepoints in CLDR may
be, it sets a very bad example for everybody else. Unicode itself
should not just be twice as careful with the use of its own
codepoints, but 10 times as careful.
I'd strongly suggest that completely independent of when and how
Corrigendum #9 gets tweaked or fixed, a quick and firm plan gets
worked out for how to get rid of these codepoints in CLDR data. The
sooner, the better.
Regards, Martin.
_______________________________________________
Unicode mailing list
Unicode@unicode.org
http://unicode.org/mailman/listinfo/unicode
_______________________________________________
Unicode mailing list
Unicode@unicode.org
http://unicode.org/mailman/listinfo/unicode
