From: vunzndi@vfemail.net
Date: Wed Mar 21 2007 - 09:29:56 CST
Since these are only recommendations this could happen in either case,
and still be 100% unicode compliant. Which means on still can not have
ones cake and eat it.
John
Quoting Eric Muller <emuller@adobe.com>:
> vunzndi@vfemail.net wrote:
>>
>> There is a similarity to compatibility here, I agree if VS have
>> been there from the start, no one would have suggested using
>> compatibility glyphs. However VS have the same problem they can be
>> normailised out, making round tripping difficult, if not impossible
>> after normalisation.
> Not "normalization" proper, but rather "removal of default ignorable".
> That second operation is vastly more unlikely than normalization. For
> example, the W3C recommends the (early) normalization of XML documents
> but they certainly don't advocate that default ignorable be removed.
>
> Eric.
-------------------------------------------------
This message sent through Virus Free Email
http://www.vfemail.net
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Mar 21 2007 - 09:31:47 CST