compatibility features (was: Mende Kikakui Number 10)

Asmus Freytag (c) asmusf at
Sun Jun 12 10:49:15 CDT 2016

On 6/11/2016 8:25 PM, Andrew Cunningham wrote:
> «If you add a [compatibility] feature to match behavior
> > [found] somewhere else [not in the Unicode standard],
> > it rarely pays to make that perform "better", because
> > it just means it's now different and no longer matches
> > [the behavior to which it was supposed to be compatible].
> > The exception is a feature for which you can establish
> > unambiguously that there is a metric of correctness or
> > a widely (universally?) shared expectation by users
> > as to the ideal behavior. In that case, being compatible
> > with a broken feature (or a random implementation of one)
> > may in fact be counter productive.»
> >

In the case of Mende Kikakui methods for encoding number 10,
I don't see where the "compatibility" with an existing implementation
of that number system comes into play.

My statement was a warning to not add features for the sake
of "compatibility", but then to break that compatibility by making
the feature "better" - i.e. different.

You can have one, but not the other. Either a new (better/correct)
feature, or one that is compatible.


More information about the Unicode mailing list