- From: MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given) <EB2M-MRT@asahi-net.or.jp>
- Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2005 23:52:14 +0900
- To: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
- Cc: www-forms-editor@w3.org, Masayasu Ishikawa <mimasa@w3.mag.keio.ac.jp>, MURATA Makoto <eb2m-mrt@asahi-net.or.jp>
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 UTC