> Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2019 20:52:15 +0100
> From: Richard Wordingham via Unicode <unicode_at_unicode.org>
>
> > > > I'm well aware of the official position. However, when we
> > > > attempted to implement it unconditionally in Emacs, some people
> > > > objected, and brought up good reasons. You can, of course, elect
> > > > to disregard this experience, and instead learn it from your
> > > > own.
> > >
> > > Is there a good record of these complaints anywhere?
> >
> > You could look up these discussions:
> >
> > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2016-02/msg00189.html
> > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2016-02/msg00506.html
>
> These are complaints about primary-level searches, not canonical
> equivalence.
Not sure what you call primary-level searches, but if you deduced the
complaints were only about searches for base characters, then that's
not so. They are long discussions with many sub-threads, so it might
be hard to find the specific details you are looking for.
However, the conclusion was very firm, and since we made the folding
optional 3 years ago, we had no complaints.
Received on Wed Oct 16 2019 - 01:34:40 CDT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Wed Oct 16 2019 - 01:34:40 CDT