FYI, I just submitted a doc to the UTC for the upcoming meeting:
#36 & #39 Recommendations
If there is any feedback you'd like me to incorporate in a revision before
the meeting, please let me know.
Mark
Mark <https://plus.google.com/114199149796022210033>
*
*
*— Il meglio è l’inimico del bene —*
**
On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 8:53 PM, Mark Davis ☕ <mark_at_macchiato.com> wrote:
> > but as Michel mentioned the data
> does not seem consistent in that case.
>
>
> You might add that to your report...
>
>
>
> Mark <https://plus.google.com/114199149796022210033>
> *
> *
> *— Il meglio è l’inimico del bene —*
> **
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 7:23 PM, Chris Weber <chris_at_lookout.net> wrote:
>
>> On 10/14/2013 12:40 AM, Mark Davis ☕ wrote:
>> > For the confusables, the presumption is that implementations have
>> > already either normalized the input to NFKC or have rejected input that
>> > is not NFKC.
>>
>> Thanks for the explanation Mark. It makes sense for implementations
>> which want to detect confusability, but as Michel mentioned the data
>> does not seem consistent in that case. Another case could be
>> implementations which want to generate confusable strings for testing -
>> do you think those could be improved by having this extra data? For
>> example:
>>
>> http://unicode.org/cldr/utility/confusables.jsp?a=m&r=None
>>
>> > It would probably be worth clarifying this in the text of
>> > http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr39/#Identifier_Characters. There is an
>> > upcoming UTC meeting at the start of Nov., so if you want to suggest
>> > that or any other improvements, you should use the
>> > http://www.unicode.org/reporting.html.
>>
>> Thank you, I'll file a report.
>>
>> --
>> Best regards,
>> Chris Weber - chris@lookout.net - http://www.lookout.net
>> PGP: F18B 2F5D ED81 B30C 58F8 3E49 3D21 FD57 F04B BCF7
>>
>
>
Received on Tue Oct 29 2013 - 05:23:46 CDT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Tue Oct 29 2013 - 05:23:46 CDT