- From: aphillips via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 08 Aug 2015 18:40:01 +0000
- To: www-international@w3.org
For [1] I adopted the change, omitting the "in visually rendered text". While a grapheme is a visual unit, I think it clutters the definition: a grapheme is still a grapheme, even when you can't see it ;-) For [2], annoyingly charmod-fun doesn't provide a formal definition, although it uses the term. It's semi-defined in a note following C012. UAX29 also doesn't bother to formally define the term. For [3], I agree. The result is that I rewrote this paragraph. I also added an example block that may need more work (or might be removed). -- GitHub Notif of comment by aphillips See https://github.com/w3c/charmod-norm/issues/10#issuecomment-129032888
Received on Saturday, 8 August 2015 18:40:03 UTC