On 3/13/2013 10:25 PM, Peter Constable wrote:
I would be inclined to assume that there are Unicode 1.1 apps loitering about.
What marks an implementation as "version X.y" ?
If the implementation doesn't support any processing of characters for
which there is a mandatory conformance requirement (such as
normalization or bidi), then this is difficult indeed. Even then,
implementations are free to handle only a partial repertoire and still
claim conformance to a given version. (This subsetting may not be
permitted for some required operations).
That said, there are some specific incompatibilities in character
assignment for Unicode 1.1 and earlier, which would allow one to detect
a Unicode 1.1 implementation (e.g. of Korean) if it indeed implemented
the older character assignments for those cases.
A Unicode implementation that passively accepts a character stream and
does nothing other than ringing a bell upon accepting a U+0007
character, would be trivially conformant to *any* version of the Unicode
Standard. How would we assign this one a version number?
Is it a Unicode 1.0? or a Unicode 6.3? or some random version number
corresponding to the latest version of the Unicode Standard that
happened to be published at the time the application was designed?,
compiled?, released?
A./
Peter
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf
Of Richard Wordingham
Sent: March 8, 2013 1:42 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Are there any pre-Unicode 5.2 applications still in existence?
On Fri, 8 Mar 2013 15:54:57 +0000
"Costello, Roger L." <[email protected]> wrote:
Are there any pre-Unicode 5.2 applications still in existence?
Strange question! Unicode 5.2 was released in 2009. Consequently, on the
Ubuntu release I'm running all characters new in Unicode 5.2 are compared equal
(and that nearly bit me - fortunately, the C locale was good enough for my
purpose.). The MS Office I have at home on my Windows 7 machine is Office XP
(i.e. 2002), and at work we use MS Office 2007 on Windows XP. I supposed it's
possible that these versions have been upgraded to a more recent version of
Unicode, but I suspect it's unlikely.
Richard.
