W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > February 2009

Re: Unicode Normalization

From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 15:02:19 -0800
Message-Id: <7E8AA319-392F-4F7F-BE79-44B11C97B767@gmail.com>
To: Robert J Burns <rob@robburns.com>
Cc: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com>, "public-i18n-core@w3.org" <public-i18n-core@w3.org>, "jonathan@jfkew.plus.com" <jonathan@jfkew.plus.com>, W3C Style List <www-style@w3.org>

On Feb 4, 2009, at 2:10 PM, Robert J Burns <rob@robburns.com> wrote:

> Hi Brad,
> Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> On Feb 4, 2009, at 1:07 PM, Robert J Burns <rob@robburns.com> wrote:
>> > However Unicode has a SHOULD requirement that two canonically
>> > equivalent but codepoint differing strings match. Unicode's Chapter
>> > 3 (C6 norm) says:
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >> A process shall not assume that the interpretations of two
>> >> canonical-equivalent character sequences are distinct.
>> Your interpretation adds something that your quoted text does not
>> include. The quoted text does not include "but code point differing".
>> It seems quite clear (at least when read in isolation from the rest  
>> of
>> the spec) that its simply saying that two canonical-equivalent
>> character sequences MAY not be distinct. If they are are not code
>> point differing then they wouldn't be distinct. Otherwise they would
>> be.
> Certainly, there is something missing from the criterion there.  
> However, your interpretation doesn't fill in that

I understand that. I was merely pointing out the logical flaw of  
reading more into the passage than what of actually says. That it  
doesn't say anything useful is not a good argument for imagining extra  
meaning beyond that.

PS sorry about the iPhone string that was added automatically to my  
email. I never got around to changing that, and didn't notice that I  
forgot to delete it. 
Received on Wednesday, 4 February 2009 23:03:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:38:23 UTC