Re: Still can't work out whats a "canonical decomp" vs a "compatibility decomp"

From: Peter_Constable@sil.org
Date: Thu May 08 2003 - 11:54:44 EDT

  • Next message: Marco Cimarosti: "RE: Still can't work out whats a "canonical decomp" vs a "compat ibility decomp""

    Asmus Freytag wrote on 05/07/2003 04:30:41 PM:

    > We would be better off with a different classification: (*)
    > - informationally equivalent
    > - semantically equivalent (or semantically neutral)
    > - simplifying (or fuzzy equivalent)
    >
    > The first would be limited to a core of current canonical decompositions
    > The second would contain the CJK compatibiliy (canonical) decompositions,
    the
    > Arabic positional form (compatibility), etc.
    > The third would contain the remainder, but would be augmented by other
    > types of fuzzy equivalence not currently in compatibility mappings.

    I can't see why pairs such as 013F and < 004C, 00B7 > or 0149 and < 02BC,
    006E > shouldn't be considered informationally equivalent. Certainly, they
    are semantically equivalent.

    There are also other issues related to canonical combining classes for
    non-Latin scripts that I've mentioned before where different sequences
    should at least be considered semantically equivalent, but they are not
    canonically equivalent.

    - Peter

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Peter Constable

    Non-Roman Script Initiative, SIL International
    7500 W. Camp Wisdom Rd., Dallas, TX 75236, USA
    Tel: +1 972 708 7485

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu May 08 2003 - 13:07:35 EDT