From: Mark Davis (mark.davis@icu-project.org)
Date: Wed May 10 2006 - 19:21:31 CDT
The result of forbidding certain characters would mean that it would be
only supporting a subset of Unicode characters. This is already done by
some protocols; for example, IDN explicitly forbids certain characters
on input. That should be clarified in the text. Such an implementation
cannot claim to be a conformant implementation of normalization for all
Unicode characters.
You're right to bring this up; it would need to be clarified in the text.
Mark
SADAHIRO Tomoyuki wrote:
> Hello.
>
> I did feedback about this through http://www.unicode.org/reporting.html
> but is it better to talk here too?
>
> Self introduction: I have an implementation of UAX#15
> in the perl language
> (cf. http://search.cpan.org/search?module=Unicode::Normalize)
>
>
>> Re: http://www.unicode.org/review/#pri86
>>
>> There is additional informative text in UAX #15: Normalization Forms
>> based on text contributed by Ken Whistler, at
>>
>> http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr15/tr15-26.html#Forbidding_Characters.
>> Feedback is welcome.
>>
>> Mark
>>
>
> Is a process which adopts this alternative approach to forbid
> some characters still conformant with UAX#15?
>
> I think no; this alternative approach breaks UAX15-C3,
> as the conformance test includes the corrected mappings.
>
> Then, how can the alternative approach, being inconformant,
> contribute to the stability of Normalized Forms?
>
> I assume noway; the forbidding just makes another result
> that is different from that out of a conformant process.
>
> Regards,
> SADAHIRO Tomoyuki
>
>
>
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed May 10 2006 - 19:25:03 CDT