From: Markus Scherer (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Mon Nov 03 2003 - 18:26:57 EST
I suggest you try it out -
ICU implements the UCA, including discontiguous contractions.
Peter Kirk wrote:
> On 03/11/2003 07:01, Kent Karlsson wrote:
>> However, the UCA does ignore differences between order of
>> *"non-blocking"* (**different** non-zero combining classes)
>> combining marks **when processing contractions**.
> But your mention of ignoring non-blocking combining marks when
> processing contractions made me look at the newly released
> http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr10/. I noticed there for the first
> time, maybe because they are there for the first time, the rules S2.1.1
> and S2.1.2 in section 4.2, and the explanatory note. If I understand
> this correctly, it means that if a contraction is defined for shin and
> sin dot (and no other relevant contractions), this will operate
> successfully even if an arbitrary combination of vowels, dagesh, rafe
> and meteg are sorted by normalisation between the sin and the sin dot.
> Is this correct? If so, I withdraw my complaint that the canonical order
> for Hebrew makes collation impossible.
> Is this efficient? Another issue...
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Nov 03 2003 - 18:59:20 EST