Re: My prod at IDN requirements

[James Seng <jseng@pobox.org.sg>]

Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
> UCS-4 is 1 representation - UTF-8 and UTF-16 are representations of the
> same charset. They have promised (ugh) that it is now only growing, not
> changing.
>
> >maybe? i think different proposals will have answer to this. i think we should
> >leave it open, and not limit to only iso10646 or some other encodings.

My point is that we may not want to put UCS-4 or ISO10646 as part of the
requirement. Why don't we leave it open allowing more and varity of different
proposals. For example, one possible proposal may consider using ISO-2022-X
and ISO-8859-X character sets.

> >this will be a problem if ISO10646 is used. because of the CJK unification
> >(arggh who is the idiot?), japanese & chinese falls under the same U+4E00
> >code space. if one folds and the other not, i think it is fairly obvious
> >how messy it is going to be.
> 
> Is this a fact or a "maybe a problem"?
> I think we need to be as specific as possible here....for each folding
> problem, name a glyph that has the problem, if possible.

As I have done Unicode CJK implementation, the answer to this is it is "a
fact". However, I do not eliminate the possibility that I am a lousy
programmer/designer :-) Maybe someone can come up with a better design and
algo.

-James Seng