From: Michael Everson (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Mon Dec 14 2009 - 15:35:25 CST
On 14 Dec 2009, at 20:56, Julian Bradfield wrote:
> On 2009-12-14, Michael Everson <email@example.com> wrote:
>> I agree. Canonical equivalence is identity.
> That's a nonsensical statement. Well, actually it's not nonsensical,
> it's just plain wrong.
> Everybody who uses the word "identity" in a technical sense knows
> what it means, and it doesn't mean "has different bytes".
Evidently I was not using it in a technical sense.
> What you presumably mean is "the space in which filenames live
> *ought* to be the set of utf-8 strings quotiented by canonical
> equivalence" (so that two canonically equivalent strings are
> representatives of one and the same filename).
No, that's not what I meant.
I meant that é 00E9 and é 0065 0301 the same platonic entity (acute
e) in an intrinsic sense, whereas both are different from a Cyrillic
lookalike, е́ 0435 0301.
*That* kind of identity.
Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Dec 14 2009 - 15:37:38 CST