On Thu, Mar 22, 2001 at 11:14:53AM -0800, Hong Zhang wrote:
> Please not fight on wording. For most encodings I know of, the concept of
> normalization does not even exist.
*boggle*. I don't think we're talking about the same Unicode.
> What is your definition of normalization?
Well, either canonical or compatibility decomposition, followed by optional
canonical composition. (I'm expecting us to use normalisation form C, which is
canon. decomp + canon. comp.)
Again, decomposition and composition are thoroughly and utterly
encoding-independent.
UTF#15 and the Unicode Standard covers this. See also the Normalization FAQ at
http://www.unicode.org/unicode/faq/normalization.html
> I still believe UTF-8 is the best choice. Random string access is just
> not important, at least, to me.
Fine, it may not be important to you and, if it makes you happy, UTF8 encoded
is supported in Dan's variable type PDD. But I predict that random string
access is a *huge* part of Perl's operation.
--
As the saying goes, if you give a man a fish, he eats for a day. If you
teach him to grep for fish, he'll leave you alone all weekend. If you
encourage him to beg for fish, pretty soon c.l.p.misc will smell like a
three-week-dead trout. -- Tom Phoenix, c.l.p.misc.
