On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 11:55:37AM +0200, Chris Lilley wrote:
PM> I might also draw attention to the wikipedia page for hyphen PM> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyphen), whose references section points to some PM> controversy as to how U+00ad should be handled.
It seems fairly clear to me: [Quotations from main text of said page.]
The text Chris quotes is from the main text of that Wikipedia page rather than from a standard as I'd initially thought on reading this message. I can't find this text in any authoritative source, and it seems to be discussing soft hyphens generally, without considering differences between different standards.
I think the reason that Chris quoted from the main text is because I wrongly indicated that it was the “references section” that pointed to controversy (I should have said ‘dissent’ or ‘disagreement’ or ‘discussion suggesting further change’ in how U+00AD should be handled); when in fact the page has both a ‘References’ section and an ‘External links’ section, and it's the latter that points to this discussion, specifically with the 3rd and 4th URIs:
* Jukka Korpela, Soft hyphen (SHY) - a hard problem? [http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/shy.html]
* Markus Kuhn, Unicode interpretation of SOFT HYPHEN breaks ISO 8859-1 compatibility. Unicode Technical Committee document L2/03-155R, June 2003. [http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/ucs/L2/03155r-kuhn-soft-hyphen.pdf]
I'm not particularly suggesting that people read the above, rather I'm just pointing out that it's still possible for a future revision of Unicode to revert to the behaviour of one of the earlier standards.
pjrm.