> What I'm suggesting is that although "cui" <0F45, 0F74, 0F72> and "ciu" > <0F45, 0F72, 0F74> should be rendered identically, the logical ordering > of the codepoints representing the vowels may represent lexical differences > that would be lost during the process of normalisation.
If there isn't a visual difference here, how could there be a lexical difference? Imagine the age before computers. All you have to go on is what's on the page. There isn't an inherent order in those elements; they could have been written by the scribe in any order. If they appear the same, you can't assign different meanings -- except by some extra-syllabic informational context... right?
On the page, you would know -- or hopefully know -- from context. But a search engine or a sorting algorithm looking at the characters presumably needs to know the difference without additional context, hence the character ordering is important.
John Hudson
Tiro Typeworks www.tiro.com Vancouver, BC [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If you browse in the shelves that, in American bookstores,
are labeled New Age, you can find there even Saint Augustine,
who, as far as I know, was not a fascist. But combining Saint
Augustine and Stonehenge -- that is a symptom of Ur-Fascism.
- Umberto Eco
