Well, of course, there's a unicode consortium description of what 'standard' means in the context of unicode:
https://unicode.org/standard/standard.html But really, I was thinking more about the distinctions drawn here: http://www.unicode.org/reports/about-reports.html#Types That said, since we're talking about errors, it's perhaps more relevant to refer unicode documents on that issue. Like, perhaps, http://unicode.org/L2/L2002/02298-j1n6815.pdf (and then try to assign J specific meanings to its terminology. For example, a unicode 'octet' might be a J 'literal' or more specifically, an item of a. or something which maps to one of those values, while a unicode 'byte' might be a J 'atom'. And, so on, ... but there's a lot to plow through... anyways, the point I was trying to get at was that a lot of what it says about errors can fit onto J in a variety of ways.) Thanks, -- Raul On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 2:01 PM 'robert therriault' via Programming <[email protected]> wrote: > > Raul, > > I am pretty sure that the Unicode Technical Committee think it is a standard, > although it has developed over a number of versions as characters are added > or moved from private encoding to publicly defined encodings. > > https://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode12.0.0/ch01.pdf > > Is that what you mean by overlapping standards? > > It is pretty clear that UTF-32 encoding would never accept surrogate pairs as > code units in any version. > > Cheers, bob > > > On Sep 13, 2019, at 10:50 AM, Raul Miller <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 1:08 PM 'robert therriault' via Programming > > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> So, where does this leave us? Well, we are kind of... sort of... doing > >> unicode, but in the process of making the process convenient, we have > >> drifted from the actual unicode standard. > > > > Unicode is not a single standard, but a bunch of overlapping standards > > and recommendations. > > > > (J itself also has a variety of standards and expectations, typically > > representing refinements of ideas used elsewhere.) > > > > Anyways, it doesn't fit the design of Unicode for the core language to > > implement all of the unicode standards. It's perfectly alright to have > > library code implement errors, if that makes the underlying > > implementation simpler. For example. And, if someone sees enough need > > to implement those errors, of course. > > > > Or have I overlooked something important? > > > > Thanks, > > > > -- > > Raul > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
