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

Re: Unicode Normalization thread should slow down; summary needed

From: Robert J Burns <rob@robburns.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 04:47:58 -0600
Cc: public-i18n-core@w3.org, W3C Style List <www-style@w3.org>
Message-Id: <FA730F23-486B-4D1A-99E5-DBAD572E9A13@robburns.com>
To: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>

Hi Henri,

On Feb 9, 2009, at 9:21 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote:

> On Feb 8, 2009, at 01:03, Robert J Burns wrote:
>>> Per L. David Baron's suggestion, I started a wiki page on the esw  
>>> wiki. If there's a better place for this, feel free to move it  
>>> there.
>>> <http://esw.w3.org/topic/I18N/CanonicalNormalization>
>> I've also added a companion page:
>> <http://esw.w3.org/topic/I18N/CanonicalNormalizationIssues>
> I think the problem statement and the companion page get carried  
> away into corners of Unicode normalization that aren't all even  
> addressed in computer languages when they apply to English and, yet,  
> minting identifiers works well enough for writers of English.
> To focus the problem statement on what people should be able to do  
> (as opposed to starting from Unicode normalization) and to avoid a  
> situation where orthographic correctness for other languages were  
> awarded a higher standard than the level of pragmatic incorrectness  
> tolerated for English, I've added an alternative problem statement to
> http://esw.w3.org/topic/I18N/CanonicalNormalization

I originally like the statement of the problem Henri composed and  
added to the wiki page. However, the latest edits that remove L. David  
Baron's problem statement actually make the piece almost impossible to  
follow. I know what its supposed to say and I have trouble following  
it, so I think an uninitiated reader will not have a clue what the  
issue is about.

Even before these latest changes the page needed more clarification  
added. For example, some of the solutions are difficult to  
differentiate: for example number #1 and #4 (originally #3). In any  
event the latest changes have made the page seem completely  
unconnected to the discussions on the list serve.

Take care,
Received on Tuesday, 10 February 2009 10:48:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:38:24 UTC