From: Philippe Verdy (verdy_p@wanadoo.fr)
Date: Wed Aug 13 2003 - 14:13:45 EDT
From: "John Cowan" <jcowan@reutershealth.com>
> In particular, is it sufficient that the character strongly resembles
an
> existing character or combination of characters, but for one or
another
> reason needs to be distinct from it?
I see no good reason, unless such distinction existed in a legacy
encoding with which Unicode wants to maintain a roundtrip
(bijective) compatibility -- see many examples in Chinese and Arabic.
But now that all popular legacy encodings have been transcoded to
Unicode, there will be little use of such compatibility decompositions
which are quite a nightmare, unless encoding problems are discovered
later when a script will be extended to support more languages, where
an initially unsuspected semantic difference will be needed by encoding
a new character with a compatibility decomposition.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Aug 13 2003 - 14:44:52 EDT