From: John Cowan (email@example.com)
Date: Wed May 07 2003 - 15:17:31 EDT
Kenneth Whistler scripsit:
> Although perhaps John Cowan might be persuaded to come up with
> the pocket edition explanation, comparable to his famous
> list of Unicode conformance requirements:
Well, since you ask (I already sent a somewhat longer version of this by
Q: What's the difference between canonical and compatibility decomposition?
A: Replacing a character by its canonical decomposition, which is either
one or two characters long, does not destroy information, and makes no
practical difference for most purposes.
Replacing a character by its compatibility decomposition, which may be
of any length, does destroy information, but typically transforms the
character into better-known characters that may be easier to process.
-- He made the Legislature meet at one-horse John Cowan tank-towns out in the alfalfa belt, so that firstname.lastname@example.org hardly nobody could get there and most of http://www.reutershealth.com the leaders would stay home and let him go http://www.ccil.org/~cowan to work and do things as he pleased. --Mencken, _Declaration of Independence_
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed May 07 2003 - 16:13:51 EDT