- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 05:57:15 +0000
- To: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5948 --- Comment #2 from Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org> 2008-09-29 05:57:15 --- Hello Michael, we discussed your comment http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5948#c1 at http://www.w3.org/2008/09/17-core-minutes#item05 We are now contacting the Unicode Technical Committee asking for stability of block names. See the thread at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-i18n-core/2008Sep/0013.html The short summary is that there is a trade off between having a stable reference to the Unicode database and allowing for more characters in "yet to come" versions of Unicode. We think a good compromise would be to make it implementation-defined which version of the database is used. This proposal is also based on Bug http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5818 Mark Davis pointed out at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-i18n-core/2008Sep/0025.html that the property Alias file http://unicode.org/Public/UNIDATA/PropertyValueAliases.txt provides information about previous block names, so you might want to take that into account as well. Regards, Felix. -- Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Monday, 29 September 2008 05:57:50 UTC