ICU implements the UCA, including discontiguous contractions.
markus
Peter Kirk wrote:
On 03/11/2003 07:01, Kent Karlsson wrote:However, the UCA does ignore differences between order of *"non-blocking"* (**different** non-zero combining classes) combining marks **when processing contractions**.
But your mention of ignoring non-blocking combining marks when processing contractions made me look at the newly released http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr10/. I noticed there for the first time, maybe because they are there for the first time, the rules S2.1.1 and S2.1.2 in section 4.2, and the explanatory note. If I understand this correctly, it means that if a contraction is defined for shin and sin dot (and no other relevant contractions), this will operate successfully even if an arbitrary combination of vowels, dagesh, rafe and meteg are sorted by normalisation between the sin and the sin dot.
Is this correct? If so, I withdraw my complaint that the canonical order for Hebrew makes collation impossible.
Is this efficient? Another issue...
