RE: Does Unicode 4.1 change NFC?

• Previous message: Timothy Partridge: "Re: U+0023"
• In reply to: Philippe Verdy: "Re: Does Unicode 4.1 change NFC?"
• Next in thread: Doug Ewell: "Re: Does Unicode 4.1 change NFC?"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
• Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

> > Yes. New CJK compatibility ideographs U+FA70..U+FAD9 have canonical
> > decompositions into single characters. For example NFC(U+FACF) =
> > U+2284A (for the first time a BMP character is normalized
> to something
> > outside BMP).
>
> Isn't that against Unicode statibility?

No.

> If things change within the set of newly assigned codepoints,
> this is not an
> issue, as existing documents normalized in the past should
> not have used
> them (and if they did, they were already non-conforming...)

Indeed. Note that U+FACF is unassigned in Unicode4.0.1.

> I will seriously download the new UCD database, when I've got
> some time.

Perhaps you should do that first, and then complain about its contents
afterwards.

Regards,
Jon Hanna
Work: <http://www.selkieweb.com/>
Play: <http://www.hackcraft.net/>
Chat: <irc://irc.freenode.net/selkie>

• Next message: Doug Ewell: "Re: Does Unicode 4.1 change NFC?"
• Previous message: Timothy Partridge: "Re: U+0023"
• In reply to: Philippe Verdy: "Re: Does Unicode 4.1 change NFC?"
• Next in thread: Doug Ewell: "Re: Does Unicode 4.1 change NFC?"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
• Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Apr 03 2005 - 15:22:55 CST