* Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >Hash: SHA1 > >When talking about mapping of fullwidth and halfwidth characters >(e.g., U+FF01 to U+0021), RFC 5895 uses the term "decomposition mappings": > > 2. Fullwidth and halfwidth characters (those defined with > Decomposition Types <wide> and <narrow>) are mapped to their > decomposition mappings as shown in the Unicode character > database. > >In the PRECIS documents, we somehow used the term "decomposition >equivalents": > > ... width mapping > is in general RECOMMENDED because allowing fullwidth and halfwidth > characters to remain unmapped to their decomposition equivalents > would violate the principle of least user surprise. > >The Unicode Standard seems to use the term "compatibility variants", >e.g., consider the following text in Chapter 5:
Quick usability check: if the "decomposition mapping" of X is `NFD(X)` then the Unicode term is the least obvious and should be avoided. If it's something else entirely, both "decomposition" terms are bad. -- Björn Höhrmann · mailto:[email protected] · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de 25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/ _______________________________________________ precis mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/precis
