Odp: Re: Re: Unicode fundamental character identity

[piotrunio-2004@wp.pl]

>Round trip compatibility (for HP 264x) … should be enough evidence.   Your defense of L2/25-037 here depends on an assumption that round trip compatibility for HP 264x is a
 sufficient argument for encoding a distinction. This is equivalent to assuming source separation for HP 264x is a sufficient basis. But Unicode makes no such commitment to preserving source separation / round trip  compatibility for HP 264x; the Standard is clear that commitments to source separation were scoped to major vendor and national standard encodings in use circa 1990. Implicit in the response in L2/25-010 is the view that source separation is not a factor
 in this case.   However, this isn't just about a duplicated character, but about a character that is visually distinct in the HP 264x source (even if it's a subtle difference) and has evidence of distinct usage (as it's observed to connect to different characters in example usage). This makes it plainly incorrect to encode them as the same character. The response in L2/25-010 claims that this can be solved by using appropriate fonts but it can't because an HP 264x Large Character set mode text document using the two different characters will have those characters appear differently in the source, but will appear the same no matter what when converted to Unicode with the current mapping.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://corp.unicode.org/pipermail/unicode/attachments/20250124/fba167fd/attachment.htm>