Martin, Thanks for your reply. Your point is that script tokens are merely used as hints for input methods to choose initial setting or something and thus a precise definition of kanji is unnecessary. Makes sense. > Do you mean you had problems understanding the text? Or do you mean > that there is no operational definition that unambiguously decides, > for each Han character, whether it's in this subset or not? I'm > assuming the later. Both. > I don't think this needs clarification in the spec, but in case a > clarification is desired, I propose to change the first sentence > above as follows: > > > >>>> > However, this neither means that an input mode has to allow input for all > the characters in the script or block, nor that an input mode is limited to > only characters from that specific script, nor that all of the script tokens > refer to an exactly defined set of characters. > >>>> This change makes me more comfortable. Let me ask one question. When Unicode or 10646 introduces some subrepertoire representing JIS X 0213:2004 and name that subrepertoire, will XForms add that name as a script token? Cheers, Makoto -- MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given) <EB2M-MRT@asahi-net.or.jp>Received on Tuesday, 1 March 2005 14:53:16 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 10 June 2009 18:12:13 GMT