[email protected] wrote:
On Mon, 14 Nov 2011, Philip TAYLOR wrote:
I think (with respect) that "some Unicode code points outside the 7-bit range"
is a gross understatement. As far as I am aware, XeTeX permits a very
considerable
subset of Unicode (perhaps even all of it; I do not know) as input.
My point is that it shouldn't treat U+00A0 as equivalent to U+007E, or
as valid at all, just because it supports "Unicode." That is not what
supporting Unicode means.
I agree with your opinion that it should not
treat U+00A0 as equivalent to U+007E -- indeed,
the Unicode standard specifies as its canonical
decomposition :
<noBreak> SPACE (U+0020)
However, I cannot agree that it should not be
treated as valid; that is just the thin end of
the wedge, and I would sooner there were no
wedge at all. XeTeX's primary strength is that
it supports Unicode; we should not weaken that
strength by requiring that it supports some parts
of Unicode and not others.
My EUR 0,02.
** Phil.
--------------------------------------------------
Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.:
http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
