On 10/14/2013 12:40 AM, Mark Davis ☕ wrote: > For the confusables, the presumption is that implementations have > already either normalized the input to NFKC or have rejected input that > is not NFKC.
Thanks for the explanation Mark. It makes sense for implementations which want to detect confusability, but as Michel mentioned the data does not seem consistent in that case. Another case could be implementations which want to generate confusable strings for testing - do you think those could be improved by having this extra data? For example: http://unicode.org/cldr/utility/confusables.jsp?a=m&r=None > It would probably be worth clarifying this in the text of > http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr39/#Identifier_Characters. There is an > upcoming UTC meeting at the start of Nov., so if you want to suggest > that or any other improvements, you should use the > http://www.unicode.org/reporting.html. Thank you, I'll file a report. -- Best regards, Chris Weber - ch...@lookout.net - http://www.lookout.net PGP: F18B 2F5D ED81 B30C 58F8 3E49 3D21 FD57 F04B BCF7
