From: Peter Kirk (email@example.com)
Date: Mon Oct 27 2003 - 18:39:48 CST
On 27/10/2003 16:16, Philippe Verdy wrote:
>So, all we can do is to define compatibility equivalence between:
> <c1, CCO, c2>
> <c1, c2>
>if and only if:
> CC(c1) > CC(c2) > 0.
>This won't affect the NFC and NFD conversion algorithms, but it can affect
>the NFKC and NFKD conversion algorithms. This means that XML, SGML and
>HTML are not affected by this change [ and the W3C is happy :-> ].
Thanks for the clarification. In principle we might be able to go a
little further: we could define both <c, CCO> and <CCO, c> as
canonically equivalent to c for all c in combining class zero. This
would have to be some kind of decomposition exception so that c is never
decomposed by adding CCO before or after it. This would not remove CCO
between two combining characters, so, if 0<c1<c2, <c1, c2> and <c1, CCO,
c2> would remain not canonically equivalent while logically equivalent.
In practice this would be a small price to pay as it is relevant only in
the almost unique case of two vowels on one consonant which actually
happen to be in canonical order.
-- Peter Kirk firstname.lastname@example.org (personal) email@example.com (work) http://www.qaya.org/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jan 18 2007 - 15:54:25 CST