<html><head></head><body><span class="viv-signature"></span>On Monday, 03
February 2025, 12:19:06 (-05:00), Peter Constable via Unicode
wrote:<br><br><blockquote style="margin: 0 0 0.80ex; border-left: #0000FF
2px solid; padding-left: 1ex">
<style>div.WordSection1{
page:WordSection1;
}
.MsoChpDefault{
}
span.EmailStyle20{
color:windowtext;
font-family:Aptos, sans-serif;
}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink{
text-decoration-color:initial;
text-decoration-style:initial;
text-decoration-thickness:initial;
text-decoration-line:underline;
color:blue;
}
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal{
font-family:Aptos, sans-serif;
font-size:12pt;
margin-left:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-top:0in;
}
@font-face {
font-family:Aptos;
}
@font-face {
font-family:Calibri;
}
@font-face {
font-family:"Cambria Math";
}</style>
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal">As stated previously, Unicode makes no guarantee of
supporting source separation / round-trip compatibility with
HP264x.</p></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I'm honestly surprised by
this. I always thought (because it was repeated so many times - must
remember repetition does not equal truth) that round-trip compatibility
with old character sets was a founding cornerstone of Unicode and so
contrastive use (aka source separation) in an old charset would be
persuasive evidence for inclusion.</div><blockquote style="margin: 0 0
0.80ex; border-left: #0000FF 2px solid; padding-left: 1ex"><div
class="WordSection1"><div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote><span class="viv-signature-below"></span></body></html>