Re: Exemplar Characters

From: Philippe Verdy (
Date: Mon Nov 14 2005 - 12:32:13 CST

  • Next message: Kenneth Whistler: "Re: Some Missing Astrological Symbols"

    From: "Mark Davis" <>
    > Here is basically the situation right now.
    > 1. If a character or sequence is only ever used in a very small number of
    > combinations, then we tend to list those separately. For example, if the
    > orthography has a-z plus é (which sorts after i), but doesn't use j and w,
    > then the main set would be:
    > [a-i é k-v x-z]

    I don't think that the examplar set implies any sort order (and so does not
    imply the alphabet order). Look at the syntaxic definition of regular
    expressions: the sets of examplar or auxiliary characters or sequences is
    unordered, so the above is *completely* equivalent to:

    [k-v x-z {é} a-i]

    And it could contain more complex regular expressions including unions,
    differences and character classes.

    The relative ordering of examplar and auxiliary characters or sequences is
    also not defined by these sets. The sort order is only completely defined in
    collation data.


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Nov 14 2005 - 12:35:32 CST