Moreover, as I wrote before, the wording in that one paragraph in 3.0 is not clearly stated, but it is clear from a reading of the rest of the standard -- with numerous examples -- and from the UCD 3.0 properties, that space *is not* a format character, and *is* a suitable base for combining marks. So the little coy remark below is not warranted with respect to combining marks on space.
> > OK, understood now. As the previous version is obsolete, and the new one > > is unavailable, we can all take a break from conforming to Unicode at Mark __________________________________ http://www.macchiato.com ► “Eppur si muove” ◄ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kenneth Whistler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2003 15:48 Subject: Re: Display of Isolated Nonspacing Marks (was Re: Questions on ZWNBS...) > Peter Kirk responded to my plea for everyone to relax a bit: > > > >If everyone would just go off for a week or two on their > > >August vacation, like they should be, we could all come back > > >about Labor Day and we wouldn't have to be having these > > >discussions. ;-) > > > > > >--Ken > > > OK, understood now. As the previous version is obsolete, and the new one > > is unavailable, we can all take a break from conforming to Unicode at > > all and take a vacation! Sounds a good idea to me ;-) > > Just in the interest of truth in advertising, the previous > version(s) are not obsolete, but are superseded by Unicode 4.0. > ^^^ > > Applications claiming conformance to Unicode 3.0 will continue > to claim conformance to that version, and that version is > relevant to their claim. And so on for Unicode 3.1 and > Unicode 3.2. > > But if and when people move on to claiming conformance to > Unicode 4.0, then it is the text of *that* version which becomes > relevant to their claim. > > We are simply in the inconvenient transition state where people > are building Unicode 4.0 implementations, but the final, final > text of the *book* (as opposed to the various UAX's and all > the data files) is not available. There were similar > transition periods for Unicode 1.0, Unicode 2.0, and Unicode 3.0, > and nearly everyone understands that is the nature of things. > > So yes, please, it's time to take a vacation! >:) > > --Ken > > >
