Re: Text Editors and Canonical Equivalence (was Coloured diacritics)

From: Peter Kirk (peterkirk@qaya.org)
Date: Tue Dec 09 2003 - 14:32:49 EST

Next message: Jim Allan: "RE: Glottal stops (bis)"

Previous message: Philippe Verdy: "RE: Coloured diacritics (Was: Transcoding Tamil in the presence of markup)"
In reply to: jcowan@reutershealth.com: "Re: Text Editors and Canonical Equivalence (was Coloured diacritics)"
Next in thread: Arcane Jill: "RE: Text Editors and Canonical Equivalence (was Coloured diacritics)"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

On 09/12/2003 10:41, jcowan@reutershealth.com wrote:

>Peter Kirk scripsit:
>
>
>
>>>... (otherwise a normalizer
>>>would be impossible; it wouldn't know whether to normalize or not!) ...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Not so. Normalisation is idempotent
>>
>>
>
>Quite right. I should have said that normalization *checking* would be
>impossible.
>
>
>
Agreed. C9 clearly specifies that a process cannot assume that another
process will give a correct answer to the question "is this string
normalised?", because that is to "assume that another process will make
a distinction between two different, but canonical-equivalent character
sequences."

-- 
Peter Kirk
peter@qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk@qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/

Next message: Jim Allan: "RE: Glottal stops (bis)"
Previous message: Philippe Verdy: "RE: Coloured diacritics (Was: Transcoding Tamil in the presence of markup)"
In reply to: jcowan@reutershealth.com: "Re: Text Editors and Canonical Equivalence (was Coloured diacritics)"
Next in thread: Arcane Jill: "RE: Text Editors and Canonical Equivalence (was Coloured diacritics)"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Dec 09 2003 - 15:26:43 EST