From: Peter Kirk (peterkirk@qaya.org)
Date: Thu Dec 04 2003 - 13:11:58 EST
On 04/12/2003 08:39, Doug Ewell wrote:
>...
>
>(2) I am NOT interested in inventing a new normalization form, or any
>variants on existing forms. Any approach that involves compatibility
>equivalences, ignores the Composition Exclusions table, or creates
>equivalences that do not exist in the Unicode Character Database (such
>as "U+1109 + U+1109 = U+110A") is NOT of interest. That amounts to
>unilaterally extending C10, which may already be too liberal to be
>applied to compression.
>
>
>
Surely ignoring Composition Exclusions is not unilaterally extending
C10. The excluded precomposed characters are still canonically
equivalent to the decomposed (and normalised) forms. And so composing a
text with them, for compression or any other purpose, still conforms to
C10, which explicitly allows "replacement of character sequences by
their canonical-equivalent sequences" - not only when the resulting
sequence is NFC or NFD.
-- Peter Kirk peter@qaya.org (personal) peterkirk@qaya.org (work) http://www.qaya.org/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Dec 04 2003 - 14:10:47 EST