On my home page I have a link to a brief paper on minimal size for an NFC normalizer.
http://www.macchiato.com/, see Normalization Footprint It was for Unicode 3.0, but the sizes shouldn't have changed much since then. It would add a bit of extra code for supplementaries. Mark __________________________________ http://www.macchiato.com â ààààààààààààààààààààà â ----- Original Message ----- From: "Doug Ewell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Unicode Mailing List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "John Cowan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tue, 2003 Nov 25 11:18 Subject: Re: Normalisation stability, was: Compression through normalization > Philippe Verdy <verdy underscore p at wanadoo dot fr> wrote: > > > I'm not convinced that there's a significant improvement when only > > checking for noramlization but not perfomring it. It requires at least > > a list of the characters are acceptable in a normalization form, and > > as well their combining classes. > > UAX #15 begs to differ. See Annex 8, "Detecting Normalization Forms": > > http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr15/#Annex8 > > In particular, the list of characters and derived properties, while > large, is *much* smaller than the complete UCD. > > I have not tested this, and don't currently plan to. > > -Doug Ewell > Fullerton, California > http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/ > > >
