Re: [charmod-norm] 2.2.1 Canonical vs. Compatibility Equivalence vs Canonical non-equivalence

Sorry, confirmation of this (more than a year old issue/fix slipped through my cracks).  The text is vastly improved, but Richard is right -- part of the original point is still not covered.  In the context of the current text, the last paragraph of 2.2 is still a bit dubious: "...does not bring together characters that have the same intrinsic meaning or function, but which vary in appearance or usage" doesn't cover all of those cases either and would be improved by a change to "which may vary".  

More generally, while I think the current reference to UTS39 is ok and that document is a useful contribution, we should (continue to) be careful to not reference it as if it were the last word on the subject.  Recent discussions in other forums demonstrate that it is not either comprehensive or the last word on the subject.  Conversely, because it is "a standard" and some people grasp at straws to "prove" the unproveable, it has been cited as part of claims that any topic it does not cover is not an issue.


-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by klensin
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/charmod-norm/issues/69#issuecomment-299175635 using your GitHub account

Received on Thursday, 4 May 2017 12:50:30 UTC