Re: Does Unicode 4.1 change NFC?

From: Peter Kirk (peterkirk@qaya.org)
Date: Sun Apr 03 2005 - 18:19:25 CST

  • Next message: Mark E. Shoulson: "Re: Use of U+203D (interrobang)"

    On 03/04/2005 23:39, Doug Ewell wrote:

    >Peter Kirk <peterkirk at qaya dot org> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >>There is a serious danger of breaking existing implementations
    >>(especially those which only fully support the BMP) by introducing a
    >>BMP character which normalises to outside the BMP.
    >>
    >>
    >
    >IMHO, existing implementations which only fully support the BMP are
    >already broken.
    >
    >

    Well, yes and no. I remember being told repeatedly that it is quite
    permissible and conformant for an implementation to support only a
    subset of Unicode characters. But of course that only worked with a
    subset closed under the operations performed by the implementation. Now,
    suddenly, without any announcement or apparent consideration of the
    implications, the subset is no longer closed under normalisation.

    -- 
    Peter Kirk
    peter@qaya.org (personal)
    peterkirk@qaya.org (work)
    http://www.qaya.org/
    -- 
    No virus found in this outgoing message.
    Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
    Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.1 - Release Date: 01/04/2005
    


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Apr 03 2005 - 18:21:00 CST