Date: Wed Mar 21 2007 - 08:18:08 CST
Quoting Eric Muller <firstname.lastname@example.org>:
> In the IVD world, we can have our cake and eat it too: we can represent
> the difference between 41-78 and 1-14-24 by having two sequences based
> on U+4FAE. Those two sequences are not canonically equivalent so we are
> fine on that front; and the ignorable nature of the variation selectors
> means that we recognize the fundamental equivalence (in a pure Unicode
> point of view) of 41-78 and 1-14-24. Thus there is no need to define
> sequences using the compatibility ideographs, and we avoid the problems
> of normalization.
> In fact, I would guess that if we had had the variation selectors
> mechanism in place from the start, this mechanism would have been used
> and the compatibility ideographs would not have been encoded.
There is a similarity to compatibility here, I agree if VS have been
there from the start, no one would have suggested using compatibility
glyphs. However VS have the same problem they can be normailised out,
making round tripping difficult, if not impossible after normalisation.
As <http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr37/> says "variation selectors
are default ignorable" does this not also mean thay some software can
normalise a text by stripping away the Variation Selector part (this
is 100% ignoring the variations selectors, fileA has the VS and the
"normalise" copy, fileB has no VS).
This message sent through Virus Free Email
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Mar 21 2007 - 08:21:39 CST