Re: Text Editors and Canonical Equivalence (was Coloured diacritics)

From: jcowan@reutershealth.com
Date: Tue Dec 09 2003 - 13:41:58 EST

Next message: Marco Cimarosti: "RE: [OT]"

Previous message: Peter Kirk: "Re: Text Editors and Canonical Equivalence (was Coloured diacritics)"
In reply to: Peter Kirk: "Re: Text Editors and Canonical Equivalence (was Coloured diacritics)"
Next in thread: Peter Kirk: "Re: Text Editors and Canonical Equivalence (was Coloured diacritics)"
Reply: Peter Kirk: "Re: Text Editors and Canonical Equivalence (was Coloured diacritics)"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

Peter Kirk scripsit:

> >... (otherwise a normalizer
> >would be impossible; it wouldn't know whether to normalize or not!) ...
> >
> Not so. Normalisation is idempotent

Quite right. I should have said that normalization *checking* would be
impossible.

-- 
Only do what only you can do.           John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>
  --Edsger W. Dijkstra,                 http://www.reutershealth.com
    deceased 6 August 2002              http://www.ccil.org/~cowan

Next message: Marco Cimarosti: "RE: [OT]"
Previous message: Peter Kirk: "Re: Text Editors and Canonical Equivalence (was Coloured diacritics)"
In reply to: Peter Kirk: "Re: Text Editors and Canonical Equivalence (was Coloured diacritics)"
Next in thread: Peter Kirk: "Re: Text Editors and Canonical Equivalence (was Coloured diacritics)"
Reply: Peter Kirk: "Re: Text Editors and Canonical Equivalence (was Coloured diacritics)"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Dec 09 2003 - 14:23:49 EST