- From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 15:02:19 -0800
- 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 23:03:02 UTC