RE: Still can't work out whats a "canonical decomp" vs a "compat ibility decomp"

From: Marco Cimarosti (marco.cimarosti@essetre.it)
Date: Thu May 08 2003 - 10:08:52 EDT

  • Next message: Michael \(michka\) Kaplan: "Re: Still can't work out whats a "canonical decomp" vs a "compatibility decomp""

    Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
    > Another potential Gedankenexperiment would of course be a
    > Cleanencoding, but I guess the WCode is already quite
    > good an attempt in that direction (though I must admit
    > that the WTF encoding makes me grimace a bit :-)

    Here is Markus' Wcode, for the benefit of new list members:

            http://www.mindspring.com/~markus.scherer/unicode/wcode.html

    Also worth of notice is Jonathan Coxhead's radical "Atomic Theory of
    Unicode":

            http://www.doves.demon.co.uk/atomic.html

    It is curious that at least one of Jonathan's humorous ideas seems to have
    found its way to the standard: SEMANTIC VARIANT (cmp. VARIATION
    SELECTOR-1..16). Also see SEMANTIC BENGALI, SEMANTIC LAO, etc. (cmp.
    Plane-14 language tags) and SEMANTIC LIGATURE (cmp. ZERO WIDTH LIGATOR,
    rejected).

    _ Marco

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu May 08 2003 - 11:12:40 EDT