Re: Does Unicode 4.1 change NFC?

From: Andrew C. West (
Date: Tue Apr 05 2005 - 07:09:28 CST

  • Next message: Christopher Fynn: "Re: Tamil Aytham and the role of Unicode names"

    On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 13:25:16 +0100, Peter Kirk wrote:
    > I note by the way that Ken has agreed that the decision
    > was perverse, while noting that it was not the UTC's decision.

    I don't think that Ken implied that normalizing U+FACF to U+2284A was perverse.
    By their nature compatibility ideographs have to normalize to a unified
    ideograph, and all unified ideographs are equal (or so I thought, above the
    bleats of "two bytes good four bytes bad"), so it is irrelevant whether it
    normalizes to a unified ideograph in the BMP or a unified ideograph in the SIP.

    What Ken said was perverse was the fact that North Korea, through WG2, insisted
    on lumbering us with yet more unneeded and unwanted compatibility ideographs,
    and that WG2 acquiesced to their demand to encode these compatibility ideographs
    in the BMP.


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Apr 05 2005 - 07:10:59 CST