From: Philippe Verdy (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Wed Dec 22 2004 - 02:33:40 CST
From: "Doug Ewell" <email@example.com>
> Philippe Verdy <verdy underscore p at wanadoo dot fr> wrote:
>> Wrong. Non-standard normalization forms are useful too, and can even
>> be safe if they preserve one of the two standard equivalences
>> (canonical or compatibility).
> I agree that non-standard normalization forms may have benefits, as in
> your Korean example.
> I respectfully disagree that they should be used. IMHO, the potential
> for confusion and lack of interoperability is greater than the benefit.
There's no interoperability problems with non-standard normalization forms
(unless a process interface absolutely requires it, which would be wrong as
it should be allowed to accept any canonically equivalent string, such as
one of the 4 standard normalization forms)..
But for internal processing, and even for process output, a non-standard
normalization form is still a valid Unicode text, and thus should be
interoperable (if it is not, blame the other "conforming" processes that
reject these textsor process them incorrectly).
Non standard normalization forms are used everyday, notably within
renderers, because the NFD form is not the easiest ordering for converting
text to glyph strings; same thing for collation, where an intermediate non
standard normalization form greatly helps reducing the size of collation
tables and the complexity of the algorithm...
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Dec 22 2004 - 11:15:17 CST