>>>>> "EZ" == Eli Zaretskii <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
EZ> Unless you refer to the CNS plane and Japanese Han characters, EZ> which were deliberately left ununified (in addition to the EZ> Unicode codepoints for those characters), I think you are EZ> mistaken. I.e., he's right. Someone needs to give a cogent argument why it's a problem in practice to have multiple representations if you can canonicalize as required, especially why this should be any different for Western scripts than for CJK. Note that I have some practical experience of this in Emacs. -- Linux-UTF8: i18n of Linux on all levels Archive: http://mail.nl.linux.org/linux-utf8/
