Peter Kirk <peterkirk at qaya dot org> wrote:It seems that Tamil users expect computers to be able to do what they could do with their manual typewriters, write vowels in a different colour from consonants. For that matter Hebrew and Arabic users probably want to be able to do the same (and the vowel colour may be "invisible").
Well, this is W3C's problem. They seem to have backed themselves into
a corner which they need to get out of but have no easy way of doing
so.
Only if this issue of applying style to individual combining marks is considered a sufficiently important text operation do they "need to get out of" this so-called corner into which they have supposedly backed.
There are plenty of things one can do with writing that aren't supported by computer encodings, and aren't really expected to be. ...
But this is of course a matter between users of XML etc and W3C, and not an issue for Unicode.
...I may have missed or misunderstood the details, but it has been clearly stated here in the last few days that (a) there are more than 11,000 redundant Korean characters in the BMP, and (b) many precomposed Korean characters lack canonical or even compatibility decompositions which would be desirable.
"Without decompositions"? What about the canonical equivalence between jamos and syllables described in Section 3.12? What about the algorithm to derive the canonical decomposition shown on page 88? What am I missing here?
...Yes on the latter part, if the users to whom the promises were made don't actually want stability of errors!
You encode a character that violates your principles and existing
encoding models, and we'll break the promises we made to users to
maintain normalization stability. Sounds like a great political
compromise to me.
-- Peter Kirk [EMAIL PROTECTED] (personal) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) http://www.qaya.org/
