Thai Codepoint U+0E33

[Gervase Markham]

On 28/07/09 18:15, Mark Davis ⌛ wrote:
> The mapping has a quite number of flaws, but now that it looks like it
> will not be normative, I don't think it is worth any spending any
> further time on it.
>
> My recommendation (for Google and other companies) is to use a more
> robust mapping that maintains as much backwards compatibility as
> possible, which is to map non-PVALID/CONTEXTx characters via the Unicode
> property NFKC_Casefold.

Again, I find myself baffled by what's going on on this list, and 
thinking I must have missed something.

Do I understand correctly? Our resident Unicode expert believes that the 
mapping document we are about to publish as "quite a number of flaws" 
and is already recommending that companies don't use it? Then how 
exactly is this document at all useful in meeting the goal of 
encouraging consistency in mapping across implementations?

If companies have to come to their own conclusions on the best way to do 
mapping, it's possible that consensus will be painfully achieved, but 
that consensus may well not do the right thing for some language 
communities, who will then be left with something sub-optimal. We aren't 
the experts.

Gerv