From: Konstantin Ritt (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue Jun 08 2010 - 10:09:44 CDT
2010/6/8 Mark Davis ☕ <email@example.com>
> If the test files are "known to be in error", then those "known" cases
need to be actually communicated back to the UTC; sitting on them doesn't do
anyone any good.
> I have not had a chance to investigate, but this particular case may be
covered by the description in
> The Line Break tests use tailoring of numbers described in Example 7 of
Section 8.2 Examples of Customization.
LB24 says: The default line breaking algorithm approximates this with the
following (LB25) rule. Note that some cases have already been handled, such
as ‘9,’, ‘[9’. For a tailoring that supports the regular expression
directly, as well as a key to the notation see Section 8.2, Examples of
and there is a note in LineBreakTest*.txt file: Note: The Line Break tests
use tailoring of numbers described in Example 7 of Section 8.2 Examples of
Customization. They also differ from the results produced by a pair table
implementation in sequences like: ZW SP CL.
but I have yet another question: why every test in LineBreakTest.txt assumes
break opportunity at the start-of-text while LB2 says: Never break at the
start of text ? if these tests are for "out of context" usage, where can i
read such note?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jun 08 2010 - 10:20:11 CDT