From: Doug Ewell (dewell@adelphia.net)
Date: Sat Dec 06 2003 - 02:38:36 EST
Kenneth Whistler <kenw at sybase dot com> wrote:
> I don't think either of our recommendations here are specific
> to compression issues.
They're not, but compression is what I'm focusing on right now, and your
recommendations do *apply* to compression.
> Basically, if a process tinkers around with changing sequences
> to their canonical equivalents, then it is advisable that
> the end result actually *be* in one of the normalization
> forms, either NFD or NFC, and that this be explicitly documented
> as what the process does. Otherwise, you are just tinkering
> and leaving the data in an indeterminate (although still
> canonically equivalent) state.
OK, then I suppose I should play devil's advocate and ask Peter's and
Philippe's question again: If C10 only restricts the modifications to
"canonically equivalent sequences," why should there be an additional
restriction that further limits them to NFC or NFD? Or, put another
way, shouldn't such a restriction be part of C10, if it is important?
-Doug Ewell
Fullerton, California
http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Dec 06 2003 - 03:17:32 EST