Re: Merging combining classes, was: New contribution N2676

From: John Cowan (
Date: Wed Oct 29 2003 - 16:14:28 CST

Peter Kirk scripsit:

> Is this actually a conformance requirement? I thought I understood the
> following: A rendering engine which fails to render canonical
> equivalents identically, or fails to render certain orders sensibly, is
> not doing what the Unicode standard tells it that it must do. But it is
> not technically non-conformant because the statement that it must render
> canonical equivalents identically is not in a conformance clause. This
> implies that software producers who produce rendering engines which are
> deficient in this way can still claim conformance to Unicode. This is an
> ambiguity which, in my opinion, should be resolved in a future edition
> of the standard.

C9 says:

A process shall not assume that the interpretations of two canonical-equivalent
character sequences are distinct.

"No, John.  I want formats that are actually       John Cowan
useful, rather than over-featured megaliths that
address all questions by piling on ridiculous
internal links in forms which are hideously
over-complex." --Simon St. Laurent on xml-dev

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jan 18 2007 - 15:54:25 CST