From: vunzndi@vfemail.net
Date: Tue Oct 30 2007 - 07:52:56 CST
Quoting Philippe Verdy <verdy_p@wanadoo.fr>:
>> Maybe I haven't understood your point here - like + and *, IDC have
>> equivalence
>
> Definitely NO. Not at the Unicode normalization level, not even in the IDS
> processes.
>
> The IDC *characters* have NO equivalences.
>
The IDC equivalences are a matter of mathematics, For example U+2FF2
xyz = U+2FF0 U+2FF0 xyz. Of course in the same way as x*(y+z) = x*y +
x*z.
> Only IDS *strings* MAY have some externally defined equivalences, depending
> on the IDS usage convention rules.
>
> And there are several conventions, there's not just one standard one that
> forbids all other conventions, and even the "best" convetion is also
> changing over time.
>
What are the different conventions do you have any examples?
> This should not affect the way the IDS are rendered in plain text, i.e. as a
> string mixing radicals and isolated IDC symbols.
>
>
-------------------------------------------------
This message sent through Virus Free Email
http://www.vfemail.net
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Oct 30 2007 - 07:54:32 CST