-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Doug Ewell wrote: > [...] Beyond a certain point in time (defined as Unicode 3.1), no new > canonical or compatibility equivalences can be defined.
Huh? What about the compatibility ideographs U+FA30..FA6A, added in 3.2? Or U+2047 DOUBLE QUESTION MARK, also added in 3.2? A correct statement of the policy is that no newly assigned character can *canonically* decompose to *two characters* unless it is added to the composition exclusion list. - -- David Hopwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Home page & PGP public key: http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hopwood/ RSA 2048-bit; fingerprint 71 8E A6 23 0E D3 4C E5 0F 69 8C D4 FA 66 15 01 Nothing in this message is intended to be legally binding. If I revoke a public key but refuse to specify why, it is because the private key has been seized under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act; see www.fipr.org/rip -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: noconv iQEVAwUBPO6mzjkCAxeYt5gVAQHBswf/dFDQapAcGOWu+lVn47ZIz+azsachQALj aws8rBZ5v9vSPT6KGVxdTVpPRtGEiLtNcFr5mEGnvQBaQ/eYBqb+xFnXVxPbxa4u Vks8wRKTY6cEAlhzNFI/3da9Y9cb77PgAhtJVIniZwbDaqkI1a0K/y9DwJvXSl6O r3RC6J55L2k/B+jbT7JvacRpvrKwOGwvQUiec+krs2u0D0Z64lCUjVAqgVTv+AYQ 1x1blsyqeEZSzH02W5q//JzFHI7+AADd3O1OZpzi3lUiNNTR7NZDBjtX3D4OEuLv AvzkywQCaPbr7Sgl4Y/6uJ6Zz4/FzPS6B1FjoyfE62rGlSTEpvadvA== =BfyB -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
