> Антон Тагунов <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote regarding Definition D5: > > > Every time I read the following passage in > > http://www.unicode.org/unicode/uni2book/ch03.pdf > > I get confused: > > > > - A single abstract character may correspond to more then one code > > value - ... > > - Multiple code values may be required to represent a single abstract > > character.
Currently, in the Version 4.0 draft, rewritten to: - A single abstract character may correspond to more than one code point ... [[ Angstrom and A-ring example ]] - A single abstract character may also be represented by a sequence of code points ... [[ G-acute example ]] > I do think the text here is unclear about "code values" and "code > units." It says they are the same thing, and then uses both terms > interchangeably, which is a bit confusing for a standard. Yep. The phrase "code value" was one of the first targets for our terminological search and destroy missions, and it has been almost entirely eliminated because of its ambiguity. > Incorporating the concepts from UTR #17 into the main text is one place > where the "language tightening" project for Unicode 4.0 should really > pay off. And that is exactly where the editors are heading. --Ken > > -Doug Ewell > Fullerton, California
