> Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2019 21:58:50 +0100 > From: Richard Wordingham via Unicode <unicode@unicode.org> > > > Sounds arbitrary to me. How do we know that all the users will want > > that? > > If the change from codepoint by codepoint matching is just canonical > equivalence, then there is no way that the ‘n’ of ‘na’ will be matched > by the ‘n’ within ‘ñ’.
"Just canonical equivalence" is also quite arbitrary, for the user's POV. At least IME. > > > (This doesn't apply to diacritic-ignoring folding.) > > But the issue _was_ diacritic-ignoring folding. > > Then we don't seem to have any evidence of user discontent arising from > supporting canonical equivalence. Again, these are very closely related from user's POV. Most users don't understand the difference, in fact. They are not Unicode experts. So maybe I was replying on a very different level, in which case apologies for taking your time.