> In fact, as has arleady been said, why should the case of "login:^" be any
> different from the case of "login:Q"?
> What is the NEW problem brought by unicode or combining characters?
The NEW problem is canonical equivalence: the idea that some user-level
graphemes can be transmitted as one character or two, at the sender's
option, since the receiver must not differentiate between the two
> Somebody says: if my application is waiting for "login", it will not trigger
> if it receives "logi˝" (where ˝ is a precomposed) but it would trigger with
> "login~", (where ~ is a combining mark). That is true, so what!?
The point is that either "logi0xf1" or "login~" must be acceptable,
and distinct from "login". Before combining characters, this wasn't
-- John Cowan email@example.com I am a member of a civilization. --David Brin
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:53 EDT