From: Richard Wordingham (richard.wordingham@ntlworld.com)
Date: Mon Mar 26 2007 - 17:58:42 CST
Philippe Verdy wrote on Monday, March 26, 2007 1:37 PM
Subject: RE: Comment on PRI 98: IVD Adobe-Japan1 (pt.2)
> Andrew West wroite:
>> If, for example, I were to write a text editor that allowed the user
>> to perform various transformations to a text (e.g. casing, diacritic
>> folding, normalization, transliteration conversions, etc.), there is
>> nothing that Unicode could say or do to stop me from also adding in a
>> facility to convert between CJK Compatibility Ideographs and their
>> corresponding CJK Unified Ideograph plus IVS if I so desired.
If this process satisfied the conformance requirement of canonically
equivalent inputs yielding canoncially equivalent outputs, you would have to
append the same variation selector to a compatibility ideograph and its
corresponding unified ideograph.
> What you are doing is not implying automatically such preservation of
> canonical equivalence of the output; it may be true if your implementation
> respects the contract, but your description could correspond to the
> following description, which is NOT a conforming process:
> * change a CJK Compatibility Ideograph to its corresponding CJK Unified
> Ideograph plus IVS;
> * change a CJK Unified Ideograph plus IVS to the next higher CJK Unified
> Ideograph plus IVS, if there's one, or to the CJK Compatibility Ideograph;
> * keep the other characters unchanged;
> Apparently it seems conforming, but consider the case where there are
> diacritics within or just after the sub-sequences being modified; and
> consider how default grapheme clusters are delimited.
Could you please give an example. Variation selectors are non-spacing
marks, so I don't see how the default grapheme cluster boundaries are
affected.
Richard.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 18:01:23 CST