From: Peter_Constable@sil.org
Date: Thu May 08 2003 - 11:54:44 EDT
Asmus Freytag wrote on 05/07/2003 04:30:41 PM:
> We would be better off with a different classification: (*)
> - informationally equivalent
> - semantically equivalent (or semantically neutral)
> - simplifying (or fuzzy equivalent)
>
> The first would be limited to a core of current canonical decompositions
> The second would contain the CJK compatibiliy (canonical) decompositions,
the
> Arabic positional form (compatibility), etc.
> The third would contain the remainder, but would be augmented by other
> types of fuzzy equivalence not currently in compatibility mappings.
I can't see why pairs such as 013F and < 004C, 00B7 > or 0149 and < 02BC,
006E > shouldn't be considered informationally equivalent. Certainly, they
are semantically equivalent.
There are also other issues related to canonical combining classes for
non-Latin scripts that I've mentioned before where different sequences
should at least be considered semantically equivalent, but they are not
canonically equivalent.
- Peter
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Constable
Non-Roman Script Initiative, SIL International
7500 W. Camp Wisdom Rd., Dallas, TX 75236, USA
Tel: +1 972 708 7485
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu May 08 2003 - 13:07:35 EDT