Hello Mark,
On 2017/05/22 01:37, Mark Davis ☕️ via Unicode wrote:
I actually didn't see any of this discussion until today.
Many thanks for chiming in.
(
unicode@unicode.org mail was going into my spam folder...) I started
reading the thread, but it looks like a lot of it is OT,
As is quit
On 23 May 2017, at 07:10, Jonathan Coxhead via Unicode
wrote:
>
> On 18/05/2017 1:58 am, Alastair Houghton via Unicode wrote:
>> On 18 May 2017, at 07:18, Henri Sivonen via Unicode
>> wrote:
>>
>>> the decision complicates U+FFFD generation when validating UTF-8 by state
>>> machine.
>>>
>>
The rising standard in the world of web development (and others) is called
»Semantic Versioning« [1], that many projects adhere to or sometimes must
actively explain, why they don't.
The structure of a »semantic version« string is a set of three integers,
MAJOR.MINOR.PATCH, where the »sematics« pa
Quote/Cytat - Manuel Strehl via Unicode (Tue 23
May 2017 11:33:24 AM CEST):
The rising standard in the world of web development (and others) is called
»Semantic Versioning« [1], that many projects adhere to or sometimes must
actively explain, why they don't.
The structure of a »semantic vers
On 5/23/2017 4:04 AM, Janusz S. Bien via Unicode wrote:
Quote/Cytat - Manuel Strehl via Unicode (Tue 23
May 2017 11:33:24 AM CEST):
The rising standard in the world of web development (and others) is
called
»Semantic Versioning« [1], that many projects adhere to or sometimes
must
actively e
2017-05-23 8:43 GMT+02:00 Asmus Freytag via Unicode :
> On 5/22/2017 3:49 PM, Richard Wordingham via Unicode wrote:
>
>> One of the objectives is to use a current version of the UCD to
>> determine, for example, which characters were in Version x.y. One
>> needs that for a regular expression such
On 5/23/2017 1:24 AM, Martin J. Dürst
via Unicode wrote:
Hello
Mark,
On 2017/05/22 01:37, Mark Davis ☕️ via Unicode wrote:
I actually didn't see any of this
discussion until today.
Many thanks for
+ the list, which somehow my reply seems to have lost.
> I may have missed something, but I think nobody actually proposed to change
> the recommendations into requirements
No thanks, that would be a breaking change for some implementations (like mine)
and force them to become non-complying or
On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 7:05 AM, Asmus Freytag via Unicode <
unicode@unicode.org> wrote:
> So, if the proposal for Unicode really was more of a "feels right" and not
> a "deviate at your peril" situation (or necessary escape hatch), then we
> are better off not making a RECOMMEDATION that goes aga
> On 23 May 2017, at 18:45, Markus Scherer via Unicode
> wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 7:05 AM, Asmus Freytag via Unicode
> wrote:
>> So, if the proposal for Unicode really was more of a "feels right" and not a
>> "deviate at your peril" situation (or necessary escape hatch), then we ar
On 5/23/2017 10:45 AM, Markus Scherer wrote:
On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 7:05 AM, Asmus Freytag via Unicode
mailto:unicode@unicode.org>> wrote:
So, if the proposal for Unicode really was more of a "feels right"
and not a "deviate at your peril" situation (or necessary escape
hatch), the
> If the thread has made one thing clear is that there's no consensus in the
> wider community
> that one approach is obviously better. When it comes to ill-formed sequences,
> all bets are off.
> Simple as that.
> Adding a "recommendation" this late in the game is just bad standards policy.
I
Asmus Freytag \(c\) wrote:
> And why add a recommendation that changes that from completely up to
> the implementation (or groups of implementations) to something where
> one way of doing it now has to justify itself?
A recommendation already exists, at the end of Section 3.9. The current
proposa
On Tue, 23 May 2017 05:29:33 -0700
Asmus Freytag via Unicode wrote:
> On 5/23/2017 4:04 AM, Janusz S. Bien via Unicode wrote:
> > Quote/Cytat - Manuel Strehl via Unicode (Tue
> > 23 May 2017 11:33:24 AM CEST):
> >
> >> The rising standard in the world of web development (and others)
> >> is ca
On 05/23/2017 12:20 PM, Asmus Freytag (c) via Unicode wrote:
On 5/23/2017 10:45 AM, Markus Scherer wrote:
On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 7:05 AM, Asmus Freytag via Unicode
mailto:unicode@unicode.org>> wrote:
So, if the proposal for Unicode really was more of a "feels right"
and not a "deviate
Richard
On 5/23/2017 1:48 PM, Richard Wordingham via Unicode wrote:
The object is to generate code*now* that, up to say Unicode Version 23.0,
can work out, from the UCD files DerivedAge.txt and
PropertyValueAliases.txt, whether an arbitrary code point was included
by some Unicode version ident
On Tue, 23 May 2017 17:44:49 -0700
Ken Whistler via Unicode wrote:
> Ah, but keep in mind, if projecting out to Version 23.0 (in the year
> 2030, by our current schedule), there is a significant chance that
> particular UCD data files may have morphed into something entirely
> different. Reca
On 2017/05/24 05:57, Karl Williamson via Unicode wrote:
On 05/23/2017 12:20 PM, Asmus Freytag (c) via Unicode wrote:
Adding a "recommendation" this late in the game is just bad standards
policy.
Unless I misunderstand, you are missing the point. There is already a
recommendation listed in
18 matches
Mail list logo
