Re: full-width Latin missing from confusables data

FYI, I just submitted a doc to the UTC for the upcoming meeting: #36 & #39 Recommendations http://goo.gl/NKeRVB If there is any feedback you'd like me to incorporate in a revision before the meeting, please let me know. Mark Mark * * *— Il megli

Re: full-width Latin missing from confusables data

> but as Michel mentioned the data does not seem consistent in that case. ​ You might add that to your report​... Mark * * *— Il meglio è l’inimico del bene —* ** On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 7:23 PM, Chris Weber wrote: > On 10/14/2013 12:40 AM, Ma

Re: full-width Latin missing from confusables data

On 10/14/2013 12:40 AM, Mark Davis ☕ wrote: > For the confusables, the presumption is that implementations have > already either normalized the input to NFKC or have rejected input that > is not NFKC. Thanks for the explanation Mark. It makes sense for implementations which want to detect confus

RE: full-width Latin missing from confusables data

> For the confusables, the presumption is that implementations have already > either normalized the input to NFKC or have rejected input that is not NFKC. Agree with that as well, however the data is not consistent by having some of these fullwidth latin characters in the data but not all of the

Re: full-width Latin missing from confusables data

For the confusables, the presumption is that implementations have already either normalized the input to NFKC or have rejected input that is not NFKC. More broadly, in gathering data the main emphasis is on characters that fit the profile in http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr39/#Identifier_Characte

full-width Latin missing from confusables data

While looking closer at the current confusables data, I've noticed that several of the fullwidth code points seem to be missing from the confusables data. For example, U+FF4D FULLWIDTH LATIN SMALL LETTER M does not exist as a confusable for U+006D LATIN SMALL LETTER M, as well as several others I'v