Re: Unicode Normalisaton Optimisation Experiments

From: Peter Kirk (
Date: Fri Sep 26 2003 - 08:59:37 EDT

  • Next message: Peter Kirk: "Re: Fun with proof by analogy, was Re: Mojibake on my Web pages"

    On 26/09/2003 05:28, John Cowan wrote:

    >Peter Kirk scripsit:
    >>Or else simply state that combining classes are assigned arbitrarily -
    >>as also needs to happen with Unicode character names which similarly
    >>contain uncorrectable errors.
    >Let's not overdo it. Names, or combining classes, that are not in
    >hindsight 100% appropriate does not justify saying that the assignments
    >are arbitrary. If we called "A" LATIN SMALL LETTER B, or OZMA VEEBLEFESTER
    >SCRITCHIFCHISTED, then there might be some justification for calling it
    Well, "arbitrary" perhaps goes too far. But if they are incorrect it
    would be better if they were totally incorrect rather than a little bit
    so - on the same basis that you are more likely to miss the bus because
    of a clock that is five minutes slow than because of one that is
    obviously telling totally the wrong time.

    Anyway, some of the Unicode names for Hebrew accents are just as
    inaccurate as calling "a" LATIN SMALL LETTER B, and some of the names of
    extended Cyrillic characters are just as confusing as that.

    Peter Kirk (personal) (work)

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Sep 26 2003 - 09:40:09 EDT