Hi John, The code re-ordering is transfering code from one code area to the same area in different order. Therefore the situation you point out is not going to happen.
Kenny Huang > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On > Behalf Of John C Klensin > Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2001 8:59 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [idn] An ignorant question about TC<-> SC > > > While reading David's NFC versus NFKC note, I had an odd thought. > I've been dissatisfied, as have many others, with the notion that > TC <-> SC mapping is analogous to case mapping in Roman-derived > alphabets. Arguments about whether that analogy applies have > helped to make the discussion of what is, to me, a very difficult > topic even more obscure. > > To quote the Unicode standard, "Serbo-Croatian is a single > language with paired alphabets". This is a definition with which > native speakers of the language agree (although, when tensions in > the Balkans are high, I assume some of them are not completely > happy about it). Would it be constructive to think about Chinese > as "one language, two alphabets"? If it is, then nameprep or a > related process ought to be able to map back and forth between > the Roman-based characters usually used in Croatian contexts and > the Cyrillic characters usually used in Serbian ones (people do > this all the time, and certainly expect the two to match). > > Of course, the analogy is not exact (these things never are): > perhaps partially because there are just fewer characters to deal > with, there are no cases in which there are potential ambiguities > in the mappings. On the other hand, one problem is more severe > than in the Chinese case: in the general case, a Serbo-Croatian > string written in Cyrillic cannot be distinguished, on a > character string basis, from uses of Cyrillic for other languages > (e.g., Russian), which should not be mapped and, similarly, a > string written in Roman-based characters cannot be distinguished, > on a character string basis, from the Roman-based characters of > another language (English?) which, again, cannot be mapped. > > In either case, the mapping becomes readily plausible if the > language, in addition to the content of the character string, is > known, but is hard to think about without causing side-effects in > other languages if not. > > Is that helpful? > john >
