- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 15:31:02 +0100
- To: "Ambrose Li" <ambrose.li@gmail.com>
- Cc: "Henri Sivonen" <hsivonen@iki.fi>, "Robert J Burns" <rob@robburns.com>, public-i18n-core@w3.org, "W3C Style List" <www-style@w3.org>
On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 15:10:17 +0100, Ambrose Li <ambrose.li@gmail.com> wrote: > \2009/2/11 Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>: >> On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 09:12:55 +0100, Ambrose Li <ambrose.li@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> Pardon my ignorance too, but this is complete news to me. As far as I >>> can tell the discussion was not "revolved around" input methods at >>> all. IME was part of the discussion, but in no way was the focus. >> >> As far as I can tell Henri is right. The reason the i18n WG wants this >> solved on the user agent side is because the authoring side is >> inconsistent in chosing a particular Unicode Normalization Form. > > But "user agent" does not equal "input methods". I'm not sure I follow. > Even if you solve the problem with input methods, you still may > encounter content that is not normalized. Even if we discount > generated content, you still have to deal with "old" content. Just > solving it in "input methods" does not solve anything. What is the problem with "old" content? Note that user agents currently do not perform Unicode Normalization at all so for all we know "old" content relies on it not being normalized by user agents. -- Anne van Kesteren <http://annevankesteren.nl/> <http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Wednesday, 11 February 2009 14:32:12 UTC