In a message dated 2001-10-21 7:22:07 Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> My question was that: > 1) newly-approved TAGALOG characters X,Y have NFC X -> Y, This is simply not going to happen. Unicode/10646 has promised us they are not going to add more compatibility characters, though, believe me, they have had plenty of requests. > Future TAGALOG may provides two sets of TAGALOG basic alphabets. > One set A in official lexicographical ordering and the other set B > is in frequecy ordering (sub-optimal one OKAY) with 1:1 NFKC defined > from A onto B. Are you actually suggesting that UTC encode each character twice? > IF UTC accepts REORDERING as an official normalization form like > NF-REORDERING , then we need no such tricks like above, and > TAGALOG support can be done within that NF in the new > NAMEPREP steps: mapping/NFKC/PROHIBIT and then NF-REORDERING . Is this scheme of reordering for the sake of compression really UTC's concern? I would suggest that Soobok read not only UTR #15, but also the page called "Unicode Policies" on the Unicode web site. There is a very clear description of some things Unicode (and by extension ISO/IEC JTC1/SC2/WG2) simply will not do. It may be a real eye-opener for some. -Doug Ewell Fullerton, California
