This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [PATCH] BZ #19575: Clarify status of entries in GB 18030-2005.
- From: "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos at redhat dot com>
- To: Andreas Schwab <schwab at suse dot de>
- Cc: GNU C Library <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2016 12:45:48 -0500
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] BZ #19575: Clarify status of entries in GB 18030-2005.
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <56B8FA69 dot 8030508 at redhat dot com> <87mvrakhab dot fsf at linux-m68k dot org> <56B90D0C dot 7090000 at redhat dot com> <87a8nakfq6 dot fsf at linux-m68k dot org> <56B92BC9 dot 7010103 at redhat dot com> <mvma8naxnxs dot fsf at hawking dot suse dot de> <56B9B942 dot 2030203 at redhat dot com> <mvm60xyw5ni dot fsf at hawking dot suse dot de> <56B9BD56 dot 70709 at redhat dot com> <mvm1t8mw509 dot fsf at hawking dot suse dot de> <56B9F179 dot 1060803 at redhat dot com> <mvmmvrat0wp dot fsf at hawking dot suse dot de> <56BA0E93 dot 1060300 at redhat dot com> <mvm60xxu8su dot fsf at hawking dot suse dot de>
On 02/09/2016 11:50 AM, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos@redhat.com> writes:
>
>> Those mappings don't follow the printed normative standard
>> of GB 18030-2005, but that's OK, this is expected best practice.
>
> # The 2005 version of gb18030 includes updates to previous mappings that use to map to PUA
> # but are now mapped to actual Unicode codepoints.
> # (CJKV 2nd edition)
This statement is only partly correct. Some of the mappings were updated
but 24 mappings for PUA code points still remained.
CJKV Information Processing 2nd edition by Dr. Ken Lunde page 108:
"... Although PUA mappings for 24 characters are still printed in the GB
18030-2005 standard proper, it is important to note that as long as
Unicode Version 4.1 or greater is used, all 24 of these characters can be
safely mapped or otherwise handled without resorting to PUA code points ..."
Therefore the 24 mappings I mention in my comments are non-normative, they
are not part of the standard, but are a best-practice mapping to newer Unicode
environments.
My comments to the file clarify this situation.
Does that clarify my position?
Cheers,
Carlos.