Subject: Re: Agreeing with Corentin's point re: problem with strict use of abstract characters
From: Jens Maurer (Jens.Maurer_at_[hidden])
Date: 2020-06-15 02:00:02
On 15/06/2020 00.06, Hubert Tong wrote:
> The presence of a UCN for a C1 (non-EBCDIC) control character in a supposedly-EBCDIC string is not immediately indicative of an error.
In this example, is the UCN intending to mean the conventionally mapped
EBCDIC control character, or something else?
Beyond EBCDIC control characters, do we know of any other situation
where input-to-Unicode mapping is not semantics-preserving or lossy?
It would be good to keep a list in one of the upcoming papers, for
the permanent record.
SG16 list run by firstname.lastname@example.org