Re: Normalization Form KC for Linux

From: Edward Cherlin (
Date: Fri Aug 27 1999 - 03:24:28 EDT

At 15:19 -0700 8/24/1999, John Cowan wrote:
>Rick McGowan scripsit:
>> Gosh, I don't approve. And I've been using Unix systems for many years.
>> The most flexible kind of implementation would prefer decomposed
>> In any case, enlightened systems would accept anything and massage as
>> to fit the particular application instead of forcing (or "suggesting") the
>> user to run everything through the meat grinder first...
>The idea here is to create documents in pre-normalized form, rather
>than requiring *every* application to do its own normalization.
>I disagree with Form KC here (I think Form C is the Right Thing),
>but I agree with the goal of early uniform normalization.
>See .
>John Cowan
> I am a member of a civilization. --David Brin

As Rick was saying elsewhere in that message, there is a lot of confusion
about the various forms a text can take during its life. We have to be able
to tell the difference between internal data structures inside running
programs, storage formats, publishing formats, input, rendering,...

I believe that the sense of the meeting has been that properly decomposed
characters are easiest to analyze and transform, and composed **glyphs**
give the best results for rendering, when available. I don't see anything
in those two ideas that requires coding of precomposed characters in
internal data structures or storage. If this is being proposed for
publishing, I think it will help in some cases while we all wait for more
capable software written by people who believe in the difference between
characters and glyphs.

Edward Cherlin
"It isn't what you don't know that hurts you, it's
what you know that ain't so."--Mark Twain, or else
some other prominent 19th century humorist and wit

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:51 EDT