From: Philippe Verdy (email@example.com)
Date: Sat Jun 28 2003 - 01:02:21 EDT
On Saturday, June 28, 2003 1:15 AM, Kenneth Whistler <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Philippe Verdy said:
> > I understand the frustration: if Unicode had not attempted to define
> > combining classes, which were not necessary to Unicode, all
> > existing combining characters would have been given a CC=0
> > (or all the same 220 or 230 value).
> Uh...., no.
> Under this scheme, <a, diaeresis, underdot> would be distinct
> from <a, underdot, diaeresis>, and the basis for defining a
> canonical ordering which would equate them would be missing.
I did not want to criticize *all* the comining classsystem, only the one
used for Hebrew text, so the context in which the message was
written was important... An isolated sentence can be quite introgating
out of its context...
Sorry, but this sentence is out of scope and creates a confusion
about something I did not want to say.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Jun 28 2003 - 01:44:52 EDT