Richard Wordingham via Unicode unicode at unicode.org
Fri Jan 18 19:49:09 CST 2019

On Fri, 18 Jan 2019 10:20:22 -0800
Asmus Freytag via Unicode <unicode at unicode.org> wrote:

> However, if there's a consensus interpretation of a given character
> the you can't just go in and change it, even if it would make that
> character work "better" for a given circumstance: you simply don't
> know (unless you research widely) how people have used that character
> in documents that work for them. Breaking those documents
> retroactively, is not acceptable.

Unless the UCD contains a contrary definition only usable where the
character wouldn't normally be used, in which case it is fine to try
to kick the character's users in the teeth. I am referring to the
belief that ZWSP separated words, whereas the UCD only defined it as a
lay-out control.  That outlawed belief has recently been very helpful
to me in using (as opposed to testing) a nod-Lana spell-checker on


More information about the Unicode mailing list