> Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2019 20:52:15 +0100 > From: Richard Wordingham via Unicode <unicode@unicode.org> > > > > > I'm well aware of the official position. However, when we > > > > attempted to implement it unconditionally in Emacs, some people > > > > objected, and brought up good reasons. You can, of course, elect > > > > to disregard this experience, and instead learn it from your > > > > own. > > > > > > Is there a good record of these complaints anywhere? > > > > You could look up these discussions: > > > > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2016-02/msg00189.html > > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2016-02/msg00506.html > > These are complaints about primary-level searches, not canonical > equivalence.
Not sure what you call primary-level searches, but if you deduced the complaints were only about searches for base characters, then that's not so. They are long discussions with many sub-threads, so it might be hard to find the specific details you are looking for. However, the conclusion was very firm, and since we made the folding optional 3 years ago, we had no complaints.