-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I was away for the weekend and am struggling to catch up on my email.
Since I haven't digested this entire thread, I'll refrain for the
moment from giving my opinion, however this comment jumped out to me.
On Aug 22, 2008, at 9:42 AM, Facundo
Hi,
On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 23:35, Guido van Rossum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I was just paid a visit by my Google colleague Mark Davis, co-founder
of the Unicode project and the president of the Unicode Consortium. He
would like to see improved Unicode support for Python. (Well duh. :-)
On
On 2008-08-22 03:25, Guido van Rossum wrote:
On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 2:26 PM, M.-A. Lemburg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2008-08-21 22:35, Guido van Rossum wrote:
I was just paid a visit by my Google colleague Mark Davis, co-founder
of the Unicode project and the president of the Unicode
2008/8/25 M.-A. Lemburg [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I would really like to see more Unicode support in Python, e.g.
for collation, compression, indexing based on graphemes and
code points, better support for special casing situations (to
cover e.g. the dotted vs. non-dotted i in the Turkish scripts),
Guido van Rossum wrote:
2008/8/25 M.-A. Lemburg [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I would really like to see more Unicode support in Python, e.g.
for collation, compression, indexing based on graphemes and
code points, better support for special casing situations (to
cover
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Aug 21, 2008, at 6:30 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
http://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode5.1.0/
Unicode 5.1.0 contains over 100,000 characters, and provides
significant additions and improvements... to existing features,
including new files and
On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 12:34 PM, Barry Warsaw [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Aug 21, 2008, at 6:30 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
http://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode5.1.0/
Unicode 5.1.0 contains over 100,000 characters, and provides significant
Barry Warsaw wrote:
I agree. This seriously feels like new, potentially high risk code to
be adding this late in the game. The BDFL can always override, but
unless someone is really convincing that this is low risk high benefit,
I'd vote no for 2.6/3.0.
at least two Unicode experts have
On 2008-08-25 19:34, Barry Warsaw wrote:
On Aug 21, 2008, at 6:30 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
http://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode5.1.0/
Unicode 5.1.0 contains over 100,000 characters, and provides
significant additions and improvements... to existing features,
including new files and
On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 10:56 AM, Guido van Rossum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 10:52 AM, Benjamin Peterson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 12:34 PM, Barry Warsaw [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Aug 21, 2008, at 6:30 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Aug 25, 2008, at 1:53 PM, Fredrik Lundh wrote:
Barry Warsaw wrote:
I agree. This seriously feels like new, potentially high risk code
to be adding this late in the game. The BDFL can always override,
but unless someone is really
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Aug 25, 2008, at 2:15 PM, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
Guido's request was just for updating the Unicode database with
the data from 5.1 - without adding new support for properties or
changing the interfaces.
See this page for a list of changes to the
Barry Warsaw wrote:
You don't mean the experts claimed they weren't important, right?
Unimportant changes definitely don't need to go in now wink.
Well, at least Guido managed to figure out what I was trying to say ;-)
/F
___
Python-Dev mailing
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Aug 25, 2008, at 3:17 PM, Fredrik Lundh wrote:
Barry Warsaw wrote:
You don't mean the experts claimed they weren't important, right?
Unimportant changes definitely don't need to go in now wink.
Well, at least Guido managed to figure out
Barry Warsaw wrote:
On Aug 21, 2008, at 6:30 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
http://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode5.1.0/
Unicode 5.1.0 contains over 100,000 characters, and provides
significant additions and improvements... to existing features,
including new files and upgrades to existing files.
is the suggestion to *replace* the 4.1.0 database with a 5.1.0
database, or to add yet another database in that module?
I would replace it.
(how's the 3.2/4.1 dual support implemented?
The compiler needs data files for all supported versions, with
old_versions listing the, well, old
That's up to us. I don't know what the reason was for keeping the
3.2.0 database around -- does anyone here recall ever using it? For
what?
It's needed for IDNA. The IDNA RFC requires that Unicode 3.2 is used
for performing IDNA (in particular, for determining what a valid domain
name is).
I can tinker a little with this over the weekend, unless Martin tells
me not to ;-)
Go ahead; I can't work on this at the moment, anyway. I would also be
confident that a mere replacement of 4.1 with 5.1 should be easy, and
I see no reason to keep the 4.1 version.
Perhaps makeunicodedata
On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 3:25 AM, Guido van Rossum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So while we could say: we provide access to the Unicode 5.1.0
database, we cannot say: we support Unicode 5.1.0, simply because
we have not reviewed the all the necessary changes and implications.
Mark's response to
2008/8/21 Guido van Rossum [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
The two, quite separate, questions, then, are (a) how much work would
it be to upgrade to version 5.1.0 of the database; and (b) would it be
acceptable to do this post-beta3 (but before rc1). If the answer to
(b) is positive, Google can help with
Facundo Batista facundobatista at gmail.com writes:
Two thoughts:
- In view of jumping to a new standard at *this* point, what I'd like
to have is a comprehensive test suite for unicodedata in a similar
sense to what happens with Decimal... It would be great to have from
the Unicode
On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 3:47 AM, Fredrik Lundh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 3:25 AM, Guido van Rossum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[MAL]
So while we could say: we provide access to the Unicode 5.1.0
database, we cannot say: we support Unicode 5.1.0, simply because
we have not
On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 6:42 AM, Facundo Batista
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- In view of jumping to a new standard at *this* point, what I'd like
to have is a comprehensive test suite for unicodedata in a similar
sense to what happens with Decimal... It would be great to have from
the Unicode
On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 4:59 PM, Guido van Rossum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(how's the 3.2/4.1 dual support implemented? do we have two distinct
datasets, or are the differences encoded in some clever way? would it
make sense to split the unicodedata module into three separate
modules, one
2008/8/22 Fredrik Lundh [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 4:59 PM, Guido van Rossum [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
(how's the 3.2/4.1 dual support implemented? do we have two distinct
datasets, or are the differences encoded in some clever way? would it
make sense to split the
when did Python-Dev turn into a members only list, btw?
---
Your mail to 'Python-Dev' with the subject
Re: Unicode 5.1.0
Is being held until the list moderator can review it for approval.
The reason it is being held:
Post by non-member to a members-only list
---
I think it's an anti-spam measure. Anybody can be a member though. :-)
On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 8:15 AM, Fredrik Lundh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
when did Python-Dev turn into a members only list, btw?
---
Your mail to 'Python-Dev' with the subject
Re: Unicode 5.1.0
Is being held until
On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 07:59:46AM -0700, Guido van Rossum wrote:
That's up to us. I don't know what the reason was for keeping the
3.2.0 database around -- does anyone here recall ever using it? For
what?
RFC 3491, one of the internationalized domain name RFCs, explicitly
requires Unicode
I was just paid a visit by my Google colleague Mark Davis, co-founder
of the Unicode project and the president of the Unicode Consortium. He
would like to see improved Unicode support for Python. (Well duh. :-)
On his list of top priorities are:
1. Upgrade the unicodata module to the Unicode
On 2008-08-21 22:35, Guido van Rossum wrote:
I was just paid a visit by my Google colleague Mark Davis, co-founder
of the Unicode project and the president of the Unicode Consortium. He
would like to see improved Unicode support for Python. (Well duh. :-)
On his list of top priorities are:
1.
Guido van Rossum wrote:
I was just paid a visit by my Google colleague Mark Davis, co-founder
of the Unicode project and the president of the Unicode Consortium. He
would like to see improved Unicode support for Python. (Well duh. :-)
On his list of top priorities are:
1. Upgrade the
On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 2:26 PM, M.-A. Lemburg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2008-08-21 22:35, Guido van Rossum wrote:
I was just paid a visit by my Google colleague Mark Davis, co-founder
of the Unicode project and the president of the Unicode Consortium. He
would like to see improved Unicode
32 matches
Mail list logo
