> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Peter Kirk
> But I am not sure that this get-out clause should > be applicable to a process which claims as its very essence "to support > correct positioning of nonspacing marks" but actually supports only a > particular arbitrary (non even canonical) order. > > I would like to see this clause tightened up to say that a process which > claims to interpret properly a particular sequence of marks must > interpret all canonically equivalent variants of that sequence > identically, with the exception of special modes to show the underlying > character sequence. That can't happen unless Unicode gives some definition to "claims to interpret properly a particular sequence of marks", and that is not likely to happen any decade soon. > Arguably conformance clause C7 in fact states this, on the basis that > canonical equivalence is a part of character semantics: > > > C7 A process shall interpret a coded character representation > > according to the character > > semantics established by this standard, if that process does interpret > > that coded character > > representation. < a-acute > and < a, combining acute > are two different coded character representations. Software can be conformant if it interprets the former but not the latter. C7 and C9 were written explicitly to make sure that was possible. > It must > interpret a non-normalised variant Conformance does not obligate a process to interpret any coded character representation, no matter what other coded character representations it may interpret. Peter Peter Constable Globalization Infrastructure and Font Technologies Microsoft Windows Division
