From: Jon Hanna (email@example.com)
Date: Tue Feb 02 2010 - 17:11:30 CST
> This means, I guess, that a combining character sequence's first character is guaranteed to be a starter, ie to have ccc=0.
> I cannot find whether the converse statement is true: is a following character guaranteed to be a non-starter?
They are, not only must the sequence start with a starter, but a starter
starts a new sequence (which may be just itself). If this weren't so,
then interpretation of a sequence of two starters would be ambiguous.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Feb 02 2010 - 17:16:18 CST