Re: Medievalist ligature character in the PUA

From: Michael Everson (
Date: Mon Dec 14 2009 - 15:35:25 CST

  • Next message: verdy_p: "Re: Medievalist ligature character in the PUA"

    On 14 Dec 2009, at 20:56, Julian Bradfield wrote:

    > On 2009-12-14, Michael Everson <> 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 *

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Dec 14 2009 - 15:37:38 CST