Re: FCD and Collation

2013-04-02 Thread Markus Scherer
Hi Richard, I was looking again at your example where U+0344 causes bad results in collation of FCD strings. See inline below. On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 12:19 PM, Richard Wordingham < richard.wording...@ntlworld.com> wrote: > On Mon, 11 Feb 2013 17:13:58 -0800 > Markus Scherer wrote: > > > I woul

Re: FCD and Collation

2013-02-14 Thread Richard Wordingham
On Tue, 12 Feb 2013 20:19:19 + Richard Wordingham wrote: > Let F be the set of all CFCD strings. > Let E(s) be the set of CFCD strings canonically equivalent to s. > Let U be the set of strings of length one. > > Let T be a set of NFD collating elements. Then the canonical closure > S of T

Re: FCD and Collation

2013-02-12 Thread Richard Wordingham
On Tue, 12 Feb 2013 20:19:19 + Richard Wordingham wrote: > Let F be the set of all CFCD strings. > Let E(s) be the set of CFCD strings canonically equivalent to s. > Let U be the set of strings of length one. > > Let T be a set of NFD collating elements. Then the canonical closure > S of T

Re: FCD and Collation

2013-02-12 Thread Richard Wordingham
On Tue, 12 Feb 2013 01:17:45 + "Whistler, Ken" wrote: > One of the reasons I resisted incorporation of > canonical enclosure in the basic UCA algorithm and in the DUCET table > is because of its infinitesimal ROI. It complicates the table and its > processing substantially, all in service of

Re: FCD and Collation

2013-02-12 Thread Richard Wordingham
On Mon, 11 Feb 2013 17:13:58 -0800 Markus Scherer wrote: > I would not revise FCD itself. For a number of processes, it is > sufficient as is. For collation it's not. > > About the Tibetan precomposed vowels: > > For the LDML spec, I submitted a CLDR ticket this morning: > http://unicode.org/cl

RE: FCD and Collation

2013-02-11 Thread Whistler, Ken
> Does anyone feel up to rigorously justifying revisions to the concepts > and algorithms of FCD and canonical closure? Occasionally one will > encounter cases where the canonical closure is infinite - in these > cases, normalisation will be necessary regardless of the outcome of the > FCD check.

Re: FCD and Collation

2013-02-11 Thread Markus Scherer
I would not revise FCD itself. For a number of processes, it is sufficient as is. For collation it's not. About the Tibetan precomposed vowels: For the LDML spec, I submitted a CLDR ticket this morning: http://unicode.org/cldr/trac/ticket/5667 For UTS #10 section 6.5, I just now submitted an err