Michael Everson scripsit: > So, you're saying, no one has asked IETF whether or not they would be > able to countenance a dozen or so changes for unimplemented things > like biblical accents.
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. 14 new changes is indeed a radical change from this point of view, and would IMO break the promise beyond repair. > I don't think anyone is proposing a *radical* change. Unfortunately, you don't understand what is "radical" here. Unicode could have done all sorts of things -- normalized simplified characters into traditional ones, even -- and W3C would probably have swallowed it. What it can't swallow is a lack of stability in Unicode's commitments. I'm on the XML Core WG and the I18N Interest Group, so I'm not talking out of my ass here. > Well, y'all are gonna have to do something, and adding duplicate > characters to ISO/IEC 10646 is not going to be well-received, because > there isn't anything broken in ISO/IEC 10646. So far I have not heard any compelling objections to CGJ except that invisible characters are fuggly. > You could explain the problem with these Hebrew accents, and ask them > to help by accepting a change. Shivering in a cave for fear of the > monsters outside isn't going to get anyone anywhere. People of good > will can often come to enlightened consensus. Not when their core values -- correctness vs. stability -- are made to be at odds. > >Change the character classes in Unicode 4.1, and they *might* decide to > >freeze support at, say, Unicode 3.0. > > Or they might understand the problem. People aren't all *that* > stupid, methinks. They -- that is, I -- do understand. To understand all is *not* to forgive all. -- Yes, chili in the eye is bad, but so is your John Cowan ear. However, I would suggest you wash your [EMAIL PROTECTED] hands thoroughly before going to the toilet. http://www.reutershealth.com --gadicath http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
