Re: Compression through normalization

From: Mark Davis (mark.davis@jtcsv.com)
Date: Sat Dec 06 2003 - 16:11:24 EST

  • Next message: Christopher John Fynn: "Re: Transcoding Tamil in the presence of markup"

    > 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?

    C10 is a conformance clause; outputting NFC is a best-practice recommendation,
    not a requirement, and does not belong in C10.

    Mark
    __________________________________
    http://www.macchiato.com
    ► शिष्यादिच्छेत्पराजयम् ◄

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Doug Ewell" <dewell@adelphia.net>
    To: "Unicode Mailing List" <unicode@unicode.org>
    Cc: "Kenneth Whistler" <kenw@sybase.com>
    Sent: Fri, 2003 Dec 05 23:38
    Subject: Re: Compression through normalization

    > 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 - 17:15:27 EST