On this side show, Philippe finally is correct, because I received his
message without ASCII-i-fication; he cc'd me directly, and I never saw
the mangled text. It's a bit embarassing for a Unicode mail list to not
even be able to let guillemets through unmolested.
But this shall not distract us from the fact that all other claims made
by Philippe in conjunction with these characters were unfounded, because
in contradiction to the specification of both properties and algorithms.
One would wish for his sake that he would take as much time and effort
to get these right as he takes on tracking this side issue.
A./
On 4/24/2014 12:41 PM, Doug Ewell wrote:
Re: Unclear text in the UBA (UAX#9) of Unicode 6.3
Philippe Verdy <verdy underscore p at wanadoo dot fr> wrote:
[...] And at least your original message
used "<<" and ">>" transliterations, not the actual characters.
No I used the «» characters exacvtly like here.
I absolutely never use the ASCII trick with << >> (especially in email
where >> is used by citations.
But may be I'll use " in English contexts (I have used it as string
delimiters in later discussions, to surround the oriented brackets and
guillemets.
I think this is your mail agent that transformed the guillemets,
http://www.unicode.org/mail-arch/unicode-ml/y2014-m04/0108.html
--
Doug Ewell | Thornton, CO, USA
http://ewellic.org | @DougEwell
_______________________________________________
Unicode mailing list
[email protected]
http://unicode.org/mailman/listinfo/unicode
_______________________________________________
Unicode mailing list
[email protected]
http://unicode.org/mailman/listinfo/unicode
