From: Mark Davis ☕ (email@example.com)
Date: Wed May 25 2011 - 15:29:55 CDT
It is not an issue of using NFC; it is a problem with the rendering
software. Similarly, it is not a problem with Unicode if some page doesn't
show a glyph for, say, U+20B9 (*₹*) indian rupee sign; it is a lack of font
It is perfectly reasonable to let people know that U+20B9 won't display on
older systems, just as it is perfectly reasonable to say that (some)
normalized text may not display on older software. But that needs to be
distinguished from saying that there is something wrong with 20B9 or with
*— Il meglio è l’inimico del bene —*
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 07:40, Andreas Prilop <firstname.lastname@example.org>wrote:
> On Wed, 25 May 2011, Peter Constable wrote:
> > Uniscribe normalization is reasonably robust for Latin, Greek
> > and Cyrllic. But it’s simply a fact that NFC normalization can have
> > undesirable effects on various other scripts. In particular, the
> > canonical ordering algorithm used in Unicode normalization can
> > be a problem for various scripts. For example, in Biblical Hebrew,
> > marks will get re-ordered into a sequence that is decidedly not
> > what makes sense for users—the set of general classes (>= 200)
> > and fixed-position classes (< 200) used for Hebrew lead to that
> > result. There are issues for other scripts as well.
> Therefore it is really bad that HTML 5 requires Normalization Form C.
> View the HTML 5 page
> on Windows XP. The line in Normalization Form C is not correctly
> displayed in (not so!) old browsers/operating systems.
> Probably the authors of HTML 5 do not know/understand this issue.
> The schoolboys from Google Groups failed again:
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed May 25 2011 - 15:34:55 CDT