Re: Does Unicode 4.1 change NFC?

From: Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk (qrczak@knm.org.pl)
Date: Sun Apr 03 2005 - 15:32:37 CST

Next message: Patrick Andries: "Re: Sindhi characters proposed"

Previous message: Doug Ewell: "Re: Does Unicode 4.1 change NFC?"
In reply to: Philippe Verdy: "Re: Does Unicode 4.1 change NFC?"
Next in thread: Philippe VERDY: "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_p@wanadoo.fr> writes:

>> 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?

I said *new* CJK compatibility ideographs. U+FA70..U+FAD9 were
unassigned in earlier versions of Unicode.

-- 
   __("<         Marcin Kowalczyk
   \__/       qrczak@knm.org.pl
    ^^     http://qrnik.knm.org.pl/~qrczak/

Next message: Patrick Andries: "Re: Sindhi characters proposed"
Previous message: Doug Ewell: "Re: Does Unicode 4.1 change NFC?"
In reply to: Philippe Verdy: "Re: Does Unicode 4.1 change NFC?"
Next in thread: Philippe VERDY: "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 - 15:33:17 CST