Re: Does Unicode 4.1 change NFC?

• Previous message: Jon Hanna: "RE: Does Unicode 4.1 change NFC?"
• In reply to: Philippe Verdy: "Re: Does Unicode 4.1 change NFC?"
• Next in thread: Peter Kirk: "Re: Does Unicode 4.1 change NFC?"
• Reply: Peter Kirk: "Re: Does Unicode 4.1 change NFC?"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
• Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

Philippe Verdy <verdy underscore p at wanadoo dot fr> wrote:

>> Yes. New CJK compatibility ideographs U+FA70..U+FAD9 have canonical
>> decompositions into single characters. For example NFC(U+FACF) =
>> U+2284A (for the first time a BMP character is normalized to
>> something outside BMP).
>
> Isn't that against Unicode statibility? Shouldn't it have been the
> reverse, keeping U+FACF stable and normalizing U+2284A to U+FACF to
> keep the compatibility? If this was added because of a past error,
> then this MUST be urgently documented.

They're new characters, Philippe. They weren't encoded until 4.1.

-Doug Ewell
 Fullerton, California
 http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/

• Next message: Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk: "Re: Does Unicode 4.1 change NFC?"
• Previous message: Jon Hanna: "RE: Does Unicode 4.1 change NFC?"
• In reply to: Philippe Verdy: "Re: Does Unicode 4.1 change NFC?"
• Next in thread: Peter Kirk: "Re: Does Unicode 4.1 change NFC?"
• Reply: Peter Kirk: "Re: Does Unicode 4.1 change NFC?"
• 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 : Sun Apr 03 2005 - 15:29:56 CST