On 10/26/2001 04:12:34 AM David Hopwood wrote:
># D21 Compatibility character: a character that has a compatibility
># decomposition.
>The problem is with D21: if all characters that have a canonical
>decomposition also have a compatibility decomposition, then all of
>these are compatibility characters. Clearly that wasn't what was
>intended, and it is inconsistent with the following two bullet points.
>
>I think the correct definition of a compatibility character is a
>character with a compatibility decomposition that differs from its
>canonical decomposition (i.e. NFKC(c) != NFC(c)). Am I right?
What D21 really means is that a compatibility character is a character
that has a compatibility decomposition *mapping*. A character can have a
canonical decomposition mapping or a compatibility decomposition mapping
but not both. *Every* character has a canonical decomposition and also a
compatibility decomposition, but that doesn't imply that any of these are
compatibility characters (using the *intent* of D21).
Defn D21 doesn't have to refer to NFKC or NFC, but your defn works --
assuming that NFKC doesn't have to be defined in terms of "compatibility
character". It doesn't, but one or the other has to be defined at some
point in terms of compatibility decomposition mapping.
>(Note that it wouldn't be correct to define a compatibility character
>simply as a character that has "<...> ..." entry in the decomposition
>field of the UCD; a counterexample is U+03D3.)
It certainly could be! In fact, that is what the defn of compatibility
character is ultimately based on.
- Peter
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Constable
Non-Roman Script Initiative, SIL International
7500 W. Camp Wisdom Rd., Dallas, TX 75236, USA
Tel: +1 972 708 7485
E-mail: <peter_constable@sil.org>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Sat Oct 27 2001 - 03:41:43 EDT