Re: Are Named sequences always going to be graphemes?

From: Karl Williamson <public_at_khwilliamson.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 12:44:07 -0600

On 06/20/2012 07:43 PM, Ken Whistler wrote:
> On 6/20/2012 3:22 PM, Karl Williamson wrote:
>> All current named sequences appear to be each a single grapheme. That
>> seems like it should always be the case.
>
> Possibly, but keep in mind that neither the Unicode Standard nor UAX #29
> in particular
> define what a "grapheme" is. UAX #29 specifies an algorithm for determining
> boundaries between "grapheme clusters", but it can be tailored, and as a
> result
> what the "thing" is between such boundaries is a little fuzzy. And even
> the default
> for that algorithm can and does change.
>
> Furthermore, I don't see any necessary correlation between what sequences
> people might end up insisting on naming (for whatever reason) and what
> people might consider to be "graphemes". There could be a valid reason
> somebody might want or need to name some sequence that clearly wouldn't
> constitute a grapheme. Who can predict?
>
>> If I'm right, should UAX #34 say this.
>>
>>
>
> That seems like a straitjacket looking for an unwilling wearer. ;-)
>
> --Ken
>
>

OK. Will they always be in NFC?
Received on Thu Jun 21 2012 - 13:47:08 CDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Thu Jun 21 2012 - 13:47:09 CDT