RE: Ambiquous compositions

From: Peter_Constable@sil.org
Date: Thu Dec 21 2000 - 15:50:54 EST


----- Forwarded by Peter Constable/IntlAdmin/WCT on 12/21/2000 03:02 PM
-----
|--------+-------------------------->
| | "Mike Lischke" |
| | <public@lischke-|
| | online.de> |
| | |
| | 12/21/2000 01:36|
| | PM |
| | |
|--------+-------------------------->
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
  | |
  | To: Peter Constable/IntlAdmin/WCT@SIL |
  | cc: |
  | Subject: RE: Ambiquous compositions |
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

Hi Peter,

> Technically, they do not need to be listed in the composition exclusion
> list: all singleton decomposition mappings are, by definition, excluded
> from composition. Read UTR 15 for the details.

I knew I had overlooked some information. Although I have read UTR15
several times this was
something which did not make it into my mind. Thank you giving this hint.

Btw: point 4 in "6 Composition Exclusion Table" (which should really only
be "Composition
exclusions" otherwise one could assume everything in this chapter is
related to the exclusion table,
which prevented me from understanding the singleton issue) requires to have
the combining class (to
check for a starter) which might not have been read from the database when
the actual code point is
parsed. The only way I can think of to handle this is to insert every
non-singleton decomposition in
a list and remove later all those which are non-starters. Any better ideas?

Ciao, Mike



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:21:17 EDT