From: Asmus Freytag (asmusf@ix.netcom.com)
Date: Wed Feb 03 2010 - 01:50:09 CST
On 2/2/2010 10:49 AM, spir wrote:
> Hello,
>
> >From the doc:
> "Starter: Any code point (assigned or not) with combining class of zero (ccc=0).
> [...]
> The term Starter refers, in concept, to the starting character of a combining character sequence (D56), because all combining character sequences except defective combining character sequences (D57) commence with a ccc=0 character—in other words, they start with a Starter.
> [...]
> Reorderable Pair: Two adjacent characters A and B in a coded character sequence <A,B> are a Reorderable Pair if and only if ccc(A) > ccc(B) > 0."
>
> 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? This would mean: "all combining character sequences except defective combining character sequences (D57) continue with ccc!=0"
>
>
There are combining characters with ccc=0.
The part of a combining character sequence that can (must) be reordered
in Normalization is not always the full sequence, because of the
presence of combining characters with ccc=0. (In fact, in principle, the
number of such parts is unlimited for combining character sequences of
unlimited length).
There you have the reason why your converse statement can't hold.
A./
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Feb 03 2010 - 02:26:46 CST