FYI, I just submitted a doc to the UTC for the upcoming meeting: #36 & #39 Recommendations
http://goo.gl/NKeRVB If there is any feedback you'd like me to incorporate in a revision before the meeting, please let me know. Mark Mark <https://plus.google.com/114199149796022210033> * * *— Il meglio è l’inimico del bene —* ** On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 8:53 PM, Mark Davis ☕ <m...@macchiato.com> wrote: > > but as Michel mentioned the data > does not seem consistent in that case. > > > You might add that to your report... > > > > Mark <https://plus.google.com/114199149796022210033> > * > * > *— Il meglio è l’inimico del bene —* > ** > > > On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 7:23 PM, Chris Weber <ch...@lookout.net> wrote: > >> 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 >> > >