From: SADAHIRO Tomoyuki (bqw10602@nifty.com)
Date: Sat Jun 10 2006 - 22:03:35 CDT
On Sun, 11 Jun 2006 00:09:15 +0100, "Richard Wordingham" <richard.wordingham@ntlworld.com> wrote
> C: Draft form:
> If uc(X) and uc(Y) are canonically equivalent, lc(X) and lc(Y) are
> canonically equivalent, and tc(X) and tc(Y) are canonically equivalent, so
> are f(X) and f(Y).
> D: Draft form:
> If X is the concatenation of X1 and X2, lc(X) is the concatenation of lc(X1)
> and lc(X2), uc(X) is the concatenation of uc(X1) and uc(X2), and tc(X) is
> the concatenation of tc(X1) and lc(X2) [N.B. lc, not tc!] then f(X) is the
> concatenation of f(X1) and f(X2).
Interesting. Do these drafts imply that if at least one of uppercase,
lowercase, and titlecase is decomposed, then *all* of the cases must
be decomposed?
[CURRENT] code; lower; title; upper;
00DF; 00DF; 0053 0073; 0053 0053; # latin small sharp S
FB00; FB00; 0046 0066; 0046 0046; # latin small lig. FF
0149; 0149; 02BC 004E; 02BC 004E; # latin small N prec. by apos.
1FB3; 1FB3; 1FBC; 0391 0399; # greek small ALPHA w. YPOGEGRAMMENI
1FBC; 1FB3; 1FBC; 0391 0399; # greek capital ALPHA w. PROSGEGRAMMENI
[according to the PROPOSAL] code; lower; title; upper;
00DF; 0073 0073; 0053 0073; 0053 0053; # latin small sharp S
FB00; 0066 0066; 0046 0066; 0046 0046; # latin small lig. FF
0149; 02BC 006E; 02BC 004E; 02BC 004E; # latin small N prec. by apos.
1FB3; 03B1 03B9; 0391 03B9; 0391 0399; # greek small ALPHA w. YPOGEGRAMMENI
1FBC; 03B1 03B9; 0391 03B9; 0391 0399; # greek capital ALPHA w. PROSGEGRAMMENI
> K: Draft Form:
> If uc(X) and uc(Y) are compatibility equivalent, lc(X) and lc(Y) are
> compatibility equivalent, and tc(X) and tc(Y) are compatibility equivalent,
> so are f(X) and f(Y).
Do you mean "If X and Y are compatibility equivalent, then uc(X) and
uc(Y) are compatibility equivalent, lc(X) and lc(Y) are compatibility
equivalent, and tc(X) and tc(Y) are compatibility equivalent,
so are f(X) and f(Y)." ?
According to the draft form K (original), the case mappings of
SQUARE MV MEGA (U+33B9) will be same as those of the sequence of
Latin <M, V>, but the case mappings of SQUARE MV (U+33B7) are
different.
According to the draft form K implying "If X and Y are compatibility
equivalent", the case mappings of both SQUARE MV MEGA and SQUARE MV
will be same as those of the sequence of Latin <M, V>.
(Note: we have square mV and MV but we don't have square mv and Mv.)
But the case folding among SQUARE MV (millivolt), SQUARE MV MEGA
(megavolt) and sequence <m, v> in the bicameral script has usefulness?
In my opinion, case mappings respecting and/or preserving compatible
equivalence are not good idea. Some compatibility decomposable characters
will lost their meanings significantly through such a case folding.
Regards,
SADAHIRO Tomoyuki
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Jun 10 2006 - 22:03:37 CDT