On Apr 26, 2004, at 5:12 AM, Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 9:34 PM -0400 4/25/04, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
And what about codepoints that *are* glyphs and/but aren't graphemes?
Where do we have those? (I'm getting tempted instead to just call them fred--it'll at least avoid some of this confusion...)
There shouldn't be those anywhere. At least under the usual definitions, a glyph is a graphic representation of a character (so different fonts define different glyphs to represent the same character), and a grapheme is a sequence of one or more characters which a common language user would consider as a unit. [Note that this usage differs from what a linguist means by a "grapheme", so the Unicode standard currently uses the term "grapheme cluster" rather than "grapheme", to minimize confusion.]
I think... we'll stick with grapeheme and deal with the confusion, though it may utimately only be me that's confused. I'm used to that by now, though.
So, are we otherwise set on the plan, such that it can be implemented and we can work on some of the parts that haven't been specified? (Like the behaviour of binary operations and some of the underlying functionality that the regex engine will need and libraries will have to implement?) This'd be a good time to speak up as I just want it all to be *done*, dammit. :)
--
Dan
--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
