[Standards] Council Minutes 2020-05-27

Sam Whited sam at samwhited.com
Tue Jun 2 20:52:44 UTC 2020



On Tue, Jun 2, 2020, at 16:48, Marvin W wrote:
> On 02.06.20 22:34, Sam Whited wrote:
> > This does not add new rules, [...] I was hoping to avoid adding
> > extra rules anyways, and making category C another thing that's
> > disallowed counts.
>
> You are contradicting yourself, but I guess we were thinking the same
> nonetheless ;)

I keep re-reading this, and I don't see a contradiction, but given your
next reply I think I must be misunderstanding something about what you
said in your previous email.

> I guess you misunderstood: I am talking about prefixing, that is
> putting the non-whitespace character (both U+200B and U+2060 are)
> where a whitespace would've been needed under current rules. Thus this
> does not require any changes to existing implementations to support
> it. The additional complexity is to correctly handle the breaking vs
> non-breaking nature of the preceding character. It also wasn't exactly
> correct as I didn't handle non-breaking spaces, so here is an updated
> version:

Ah yes, I see, that makes sense. I don't love this, but I'd be okay with
it if we found a character that had better semantics than U+2060. I'm
still looking into how its used and what Unicode says it's okay for, but
if it is strictly for joining words and preventing a break I agree it's
a hack and should be avoided.

Maybe U+E007F CANCEL TAG would be okay, right now it's only used for the
various combinations of flag emojis, but the Wikipedia article suggests
it's for general use as a "cancel" control character. I'll keep reading,
it may just be that this isn't a good idea after all and doesn't work.
We'll see.

—Sam

-- 
Sam Whited


More information about the Standards mailing list