Re: Does Unicode 4.1 change NFC?

From: Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk (qrczak@knm.org.pl)
Date: Mon Apr 04 2005 - 09:33:50 CST

Next message: Catriona Hyslop: "Macrons"

Previous message: Theo Veenker: "testing case mapping & case folding"
In reply to: Peter Kirk: "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 ]

> 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. For the BMP is now
> no longer a closed subset of Unicode, under operations like
> normalisation which existing implementations expected to find closed.

I had to change my implementation of normalization because of this
(my static tables of canonical decompositions use 16-bit entries for
BMP blocks), but it was not a big deal.

I'm more concerned with killing the myth that Unicode is a 16-bit
encoding than with that minor inconvenience.

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

Next message: Catriona Hyslop: "Macrons"
Previous message: Theo Veenker: "testing case mapping & case folding"
In reply to: Peter Kirk: "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 : Mon Apr 04 2005 - 09:34:48 CST