On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 01:19:00 +0100
Philippe Verdy <verdy_p_at_wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> It is the UCA that defines the concept of ignorable characters. And
> the DUCET ("Default" UCET) that makes characters ignorable by default,
> but this can still be tailored in specific collations).
>
> Where did you see another confusive expression in TUS defining
> "default ignorable" differently as being intended for rendering
> purposes ?
Penultimate paragraph of TUS Section 5.3.
> If there's such a place it should be changed (and TUS should not
> standardize what renderers should do, they have great flexibility as
> long as this does not disrupt the text semantics 'too much", including
> not rendering all possible semantic differences but rendering them in
> contexts where confusion is not possible for readers in most used
> locales and with common presentations used in that language and script
> pair).
TUS Section 5.21 subsection 'Characters Ignored in Searching
and Sorting' susbsubsection 'Default Ignorable Code Point' expands on
the issue. It emphasises that this property is intended for use when
the renderer does not understand ('grok' would be a better word here)
the character. For example, some unassigned characters have this
property, just as unassigned characters have provisional bidi classes -
some R, most L.
Richard.
Received on Tue Mar 19 2013 - 03:16:13 CDT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Tue Mar 19 2013 - 03:16:16 CDT