Re: Open Issue #61: Proposed Update UAX #15 Unicode Normalization Forms

From: Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk (
Date: Wed Jan 26 2005 - 13:07:18 CST

  • Next message: Jon Hanna: "RE: Surrogate points"

    Simon Josefsson <> writes:

    > This change appear to break backwards compatibility and normalization
    > stability. The PR29 text suggest that the problematic sequences do
    > not occur naturally. My question then is: why break normalization
    > stability over something that doesn't appear to be a practical
    > problem?

    Because normalizations should be idempotent. This was always intended,
    the old specification had a bug.

    Some implementations actually used the literal meaning, and some used
    the intended meaning (perhaps by accident, I don't know). It makes no
    sense to add the bug now to all implementations which used to have it

    It happens that it affected my implementation of normalization that
    I've made for my language. I already fixed it. Are you saying that I
    should break it again?

    > However, I am concerned that normalization stability is given so
    > little weight that it is violated even for situations that doesn't
    > appear to have practical consequences.

    I am more concerned with maintaining bugs forever in the name of

    If this particular change can have practical consequence, it's more
    probable that something will break with the old definition (because
    a subsystem relied on idempotency) than with the new one.

       __("<         Marcin Kowalczyk

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 26 2005 - 13:09:17 CST