Looks that way to me too. Can you submit this as feedback?
{phone}
On Jan 12, 2016 00:39, "Karl Williamson" <public_at_khwilliamson.com> wrote:
> Example 7 in http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr14/#Examples
>
> has these two rules
>
> NU × (NU | SY | IS)
>
> NU (NU | SY | IS)* × (NU | SY | IS | CL | CP )
>
> It appears to me that the first rule generates a subset of what the 2nd
> rule generates, and so is useless. It could be hence removed for
> simplicity, unless I'm missing something or there is a typo and it is meant
> to generate something else.
>
>
Received on Mon Jan 11 2016 - 23:56:12 CST
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Jan 11 2016 - 23:56:12 CST