- From: Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.cc.titech.ac.jp>
- Date: Thu, 05 Aug 1993 08:06:59 +0900 (JST)
- To: lwj@cs.kun.nl (Luc Rooijakkers)
- Cc: ietf-charsets@INNOSOFT.COM
> > It is very useful, if the uniqueness is not achievable, to have > > some short notation of regular expressions to represent all the > > equivalent characters. > > This merely moves the burden up to the user, to type that regular > expression, That's why a *SHORT* notation is very useful. > I found it very illuminating that the June 1993 version of ECMA-35, to > be proposed to ISO as a new edition of 2022, requires the lowest > numbered of G0/G1/G2/G3 to be used when a character is present in > multiple sets, *even if a higher numbered set is already invoked > and the lowest numbered set is not* (clause 7.5). This amounts to a > version of uniqueness. I don't think it any useful. As the code points of some character varies with no regularlity in different character sets, it means you must have a table. And, if you have such a table, it is not at all difficult for the receiver side to use the table to disambigufy a character with multiple representations. And, do you think 'A' in JIS X0208 is identical to 'A' in ASCII? Do you think Han characters of GB, CNS, JIS, KCS unified in ISO 10646 the same cahracters? Masataka Ohta --Boundary (ID uEbHHWxWEwCKT9wM3evJ5w)
Received on Wednesday, 4 August 1993 16:11:22 UTC