From: John Cowan (jcowan@reutershealth.com)
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 http://www.ccil.org/~cowan address all questions by piling on ridiculous http://www.reutershealth.com internal links in forms which are hideously jcowan@reutershealth.com 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