From: Kenneth Whistler (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Fri Mar 10 2006 - 12:20:43 CST
António MARTINS-Tuválkin asked:
> A bit off (this) topic: Why isn't U+225E decomposable as U+003D U+036B ?
Because U+036B COMBINING LATIN SMALL LETTER M was not yet encoded
at the time that U+225E was encoded:
And because of normalization stability guarantees, no new combining mark
encoded as of Unicode 3.0 or later can be used to create a new
decomposition for a character that didn't have one previously but
which might be argued to consist of a combination with it.
Nothing can prevent people from using a sequence <U+003D, U+036B>
and expecting it to display as an equals sign with a small m
over it, but it will never be canonically equivalent to U+225E.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Mar 10 2006 - 12:24:12 CST