From: Philippe Verdy (verdy_p@wanadoo.fr)
Date: Thu Nov 27 2003 - 17:02:49 EST
Doug Ewell writes:
> Peter Kirk <peterkirk at qaya dot org> wrote:
>
> > Yes, the compressor can make any canonically equivalent change, not
> > just composing composition exclusions but reordering combining marks
> > in different classes. The only flaw I see is that the compressor does
> > not have to undo these changes on decompression; at least no other
> > process is allowed to rely on it having done so.
>
> I agree with Peter here. I don't think the burden should be on the
> decompressor to reverse any operation that the compressor performs,
> except for the compression itself.
There's possibly a misreading or misunderstanding about what I call
"undoing" custom normalization. What I mean there is that the
decompressor can be done to produce a standard NFC or NFD form,
independantly of the normalization order or composition exclusions or
non-exclusion performed in the compressor.
This way, a decompressor can be made compatible with an application
that expects a particular normalization form. But if we agree that
any application should accept any canonically equivalent string, it's
true that this reormalization step in the decompressor is not needed:
it's then up to the application using the decompressor to choose its
own prefered normalization on input, from the output of the
decompressor.
__________________________________________________________________
<< ella for Spam Control >> has removed Spam messages and set aside
Newsletters for me
You can use it too - and it's FREE! http://www.ellaforspam.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 27 2003 - 17:40:34 EST