Kevin Bracey wrote:
> Firstly, are characters in the Hangul Syllables block canonically equivalent
> to their decomposed conjoining Jamo? It is implied, but I can't see it
> explicitly stated anywhere.
Yes. This was nailed down in Unicode 2.1, not very readably to be
sure, but there. Even though you have to pass through some compatibility
equivalences to get there, the overall transformation between
hangul and jamo is canonical.
> Secondly, the Hangul Jamo block has lots of compatibility decompositions;
> for example
> 11AC (NJ) ~= 11AB (N) + 11BD (J)
> Are these really only compatibility decompositions, not canonical
> decompositions? Is G A NJ (1100 1161 11AC = AC05) really not canonically
> equivalent to G A N J (1100 1161 11AB 11BD)?
That is what it says, yes.
-- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan firstname.lastname@example.org You tollerday donsk? N. You tolkatiff scowegian? Nn. You spigotty anglease? Nnn. You phonio saxo? Nnnn. Clear all so! 'Tis a Jute.... (Finnegans Wake 16.5)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:44 EDT