At 05:59 26/07/02 -0700, James Kass wrote: > >Martin Kochanski wrote, > >> As a software publisher, I would argue that the rendering and >> behaviour of a given Unicode code point should *never* change: >> literally never, even if the script is long dead, no-one can read >> it, and the glyph has acquired an offensive meaning, like the >> once innocent swastika. I want people to be still using our software >> in 20 years' time without the need for constant updates. >> > >If you'd consider changing the phrase "rendering and behaviour" in >your paragraph above to "semantics or meaning" and dropping the >part about "constant update", I'd be pleased to stand by your side >and help you argue.
You're quite right! I said "rendering" by accident, not really meaning it -- especially since most application programs don't do any interesting rendering anyway but leave it to the operating system, or fonts, or other components generally.
