> OK, then I suppose I should play devil's advocate and ask Peter's and > Philippe's question again: If C10 only restricts the modifications to > "canonically equivalent sequences," why should there be an additional > restriction that further limits them to NFC or NFD? Or, put another > way, shouldn't such a restriction be part of C10, if it is important?
C10 is a conformance clause; outputting NFC is a best-practice recommendation, not a requirement, and does not belong in C10. Mark __________________________________ http://www.macchiato.com â ààààààààààààààààààààà â ----- Original Message ----- From: "Doug Ewell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Unicode Mailing List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "Kenneth Whistler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Fri, 2003 Dec 05 23:38 Subject: Re: Compression through normalization > Kenneth Whistler <kenw at sybase dot com> wrote: > > > I don't think either of our recommendations here are specific > > to compression issues. > > They're not, but compression is what I'm focusing on right now, and your > recommendations do *apply* to compression. > > > Basically, if a process tinkers around with changing sequences > > to their canonical equivalents, then it is advisable that > > the end result actually *be* in one of the normalization > > forms, either NFD or NFC, and that this be explicitly documented > > as what the process does. Otherwise, you are just tinkering > > and leaving the data in an indeterminate (although still > > canonically equivalent) state. > > OK, then I suppose I should play devil's advocate and ask Peter's and > Philippe's question again: If C10 only restricts the modifications to > "canonically equivalent sequences," why should there be an additional > restriction that further limits them to NFC or NFD? Or, put another > way, shouldn't such a restriction be part of C10, if it is important? > > -Doug Ewell > Fullerton, California > http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/ > > >
