On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 12:20 AM, Marcus Comstedt (ACROSS) (Hail Ilpalazzo!) @ Pike (-) developers forum 10353@lyskom.lysator.liu.se wrote:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg47378.html http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg47387.html http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg47444.html http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg47574.html
These posts appear to be about the _names_ assigned to characters in RFC 1345, which isn't relevant here.
That's true, in the specifics being dealt with at the time, but the general comments that 1345 isn't a standard and has inaccuracies are true of it all. I would still be inclined to follow the unicode.org files rather than RFC 1345; if nothing else, for consistency with other tools.
ChrisA
And I'd be inclined to fix any acctual errors, rather than blindly following one or the other. :-)
Just so you know, the MAPPINGS files on unicode.org is not part of the Unicode standard, so they are no more a standard than RFC 1345 is.
pike-devel@lists.lysator.liu.se
-
Chris Angelico -
Marcus Comstedt (ACROSS) (Hail Ilpalazzo!) ＠ Pike (-) developers forum