RE: Variation selectors and vowel marks

From: Asmus Freytag (
Date: Sat Apr 24 2004 - 19:15:29 EDT

  • Next message: Asmus Freytag: "Re: Variation selectors and vowel marks"

    At 06:30 AM 4/24/2004, Peter Constable replied to Peter Kirk:
    >problems do arise if there is more than one combining character
    > > between the base character and the VS and they are not in canonical
    > > order. But this is a marginal case which can be avoided by ensuring
    > > canonical order is always used.
    >If data is always encoded in canonical order, then having a VS within
    >the combining mark sequence wouldn't create any normalization problems,
    >that's true. But you well know that people do not want their Hebrew data
    >in canonical order. Even if they did, it couldn't be guaranteed.

    More simply put, if all data was always normalized, we wouldn't need
    normalization ;-).

    Having character sequences that can't be normalized is not a 'marginal case'.

    Furthermore, one of the defining characteristics of a VS character is that
    there must be a sufficiently large number of circumstances where it's OK to
    ignore its presence altogether. If there isn't, and if there's a strong
    semantic distinction between the character and its variation, then it's
    really not a good case for a VS - one should propose a new character.


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Apr 24 2004 - 19:45:55 EDT