Odp: Re: Re: Unicode fundamental character identity

[piotrunio-2...@wp.pl via Unicode]

>Round trip compatibility (for HP 264x) … should be enough evidence.   Your 
defense of L2/25-037 here depends on an assumption that round trip 
compatibility for HP 264x is a
 sufficient argument for encoding a distinction. This is equivalent to assuming 
source separation for HP 264x is a sufficient basis. But Unicode makes no such 
commitment to preserving source separation / round trip  compatibility for HP 
264x; the Standard is clear that commitments to source separation were scoped 
to major vendor and national standard encodings in use circa 1990. Implicit in 
the response in L2/25-010 is the view that source separation is not a factor
 in this case.   However, this isn't just about a duplicated character, but 
about a character that is visually distinct in the HP 264x source (even if 
it's a subtle difference) and has evidence of distinct usage (as it's 
observed to connect to different characters in example usage). This makes it 
plainly incorrect to encode them as the same character. The response in 
L2/25-010 claims that this can be solved by using appropriate fonts but it 
can't because an HP 264x Large Character set mode text document using the 
two different characters will have those characters appear differently in the 
source, but will appear the same no matter what when converted to Unicode with 
the current mapping.