Doug Ewell wrote: > And no, I did not intend to make this big a deal out of it, and I > apologize for doing so.
Nor did I. I'm a genuine student of Unicode, here to learn. It seems many of the regular contributors to the Unicode and Unicore mailing lists are the Unicode experts themselves, many of whom are developers of the Unicode Standard. As such, these mailing lists are fantastic! There are very few technology mailing lists like them anymore. How cool is it to post an inquiry to the Unicode mailing list and have Unicode luminaries like Mark Davis, Asmus Freytag, Markus Scherer, Martin Dürst and Doug Ewell ALL reply? (The answer: Pretty darn cool!) When I asked for clarification about my use of the term "CJK text" instead of "kana and Hangul text", I was earnest. If there was something wrong with my understanding of the standard terminology, I genuinely wanted to know what it was. You're the experts, I'm the initiate. > The answer to Jim's question, then, is that for those examples > of "CJK text" which are encoded differently in NFC and NFD (a group > that excludes ideographs, thus immediately putting that side issue > to rest), there are indeed some combinations of OS + app + rendering > engine + font that can display those examples properly. And this was the valuable lesson I learned. Until this exchange on the Unicode mailing, I'd had a biased and wrong impression of the state of the art with respect to Unicode normalization and modern software based on my own personal experience. I'm glad I asked the question, and I'm grateful for all the excellent and thorough answers. When I type the ideograph 漢 (U+FA47) into BabelPad, highlight it, and then click the button labeled "Normalize to NFC", the character becomes 漢 (U+6F22). Does BabelPad not conform to the Unicode Standard in this case? Is this not truly Unicode normalization? Jim Monty
