Re: Odp: RE: Re: Re: Unicode fundamental character identity
James Kass via Unicode <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.text.unicode.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 2025-01-31 5:42 PM, [email protected] via Unicode wrote: > I'm not saying that it is, but if I'm relying on arguments relevant to > the actual usage of the characters, and the dominant opposing side > does not provide all that much coherent of a reasoning in return, then > I'm getting suspicious. Doug and Peter have provided some good advice with respect to such suspicions. My apologies to Peter Constable for my failure to understand exactly what was being dismissed earlier in this thread. Quoting from https://www.unicode.org/L2/L2025/25010-script-wg-report.pdf "We deem the differences demonstrated in the proposal to not constitute differences in plain text. No evidence of a document that would make a distinction between the corresponding characters in the different code pages was provided." That seems coherent enough. If a simple and concise exhibit can be made showing the desired distinction making a difference in plain text, then that would be a logical next step. Evidence illustrating data loss in round-tripping would also be helpful. Input from the user community supporting retaining distinctions in Unicode should help the effort.