From: Doug Ewell (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue May 24 2011 - 13:53:38 CDT
Christoph Päper <christoph dot paeper at crissov dot de> wrote:
>> A new encoding isn't necessary to solve problems with combining characters or to enforce normalization forms.
> That was just an aside.
Christoph is correct, and I should not have made my post look as though
it was directed mainly at his suggestion of "UTF-8 limited to NFD." My
primary objection was to Plamen's proposal to encode duplicative
precomposed Cyrillic letters to fix rendering problems.
Unfortunately, I started with Christoph's UTF-8 topic ("A new encoding
isn't necessary") and switched to Plamen's precomposed-letter topic
("the solution is to improve X, not change the encoding"), and used the
word "encoding" for both, making it look like my whole post was aimed at
Christoph, to whom I apologize.
In any case, I don't think Christoph is really talking about "UTF-8
limited to NFD" after all, but rather "Unicode limited to NFD." I agree
that it would have been nice if the combining-character model were the
only one (search on "Cleanicode"), but of course there were pragmatic
concerns that forced a lot of hands. I also agree that programs should
play well with decomposed character sequences, even for Latin, but we
know that not all of them will.
-- Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA | RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14 www.ewellic.org | www.facebook.com/doug.ewell | @DougEwell
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue May 24 2011 - 13:57:20 CDT