On 06/04/2002 05:13:09 AM Peter_Constable wrote:
>I understand. I'm not arguing at this point that the combining classes >should be changed (though I would were it a possibility) -- if you look at >my earlier post in this thread, you'll see that I explained to Khun Samphan >that this is not a possibility. I will add, though, that this is impossible due only to a principle, and not because there would be any real problems with existing data being invalidated. We all know for a fact that there are not yet any existing implementations of Khmer, hence no existing data to be affected by any change in normalisation. I strongly believe that the same is true of Myanmar. And while there are implementations of Thai and may well be for Lao, the combinations affected by the combining class issue I mentioned would only occur in less common languages, and the only people with such data (if there is any such data in Unicode -- I very much suspect it still exists only in custom encodings) would probably prefer (because their needs would be better served) to have the combining classes changed. Not that I expect that to change the corporate mind of UTC, since it's not good enough just to limit changes to anything that doesn't affect any actual normalised data; rather, the good purple book doth say, "Thou shalt avoid even the appearance of normalised-data-breaking evil." - Peter --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Constable Non-Roman Script Initiative, SIL International 7500 W. Camp Wisdom Rd., Dallas, TX 75236, USA Tel: +1 972 708 7485 E-mail: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
