Peter Kirk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote : > On 25/09/2003 14:25, Markus Scherer wrote: > > > Peter Kirk wrote: > > > >> On 25/09/2003 12:27, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > >> > >>> It's not a reordering per se, as the first combining character is > > >>> given the first "opportunity" to combine. > >>> > >> > >> Thanks for the clarification. > > > > > > In other words, yes, Unicode's NFC does perform "discontiguous > > composition". Some things might be easier if only contiguous > > composition were used, but the current definition does give you the > > shortest strings.
A composition system that could produce shorter strings is possible (calculate every possible combination with the same decomposition, use the shortest) the system used by NFC is a compromise between conciseness of the output and the computational effort needed to generate it. > And this current definition cannot be changed because of the stability > policy, right? If there is a problem with this then it goes deeper than just NFC, but to the rules of how combining characters can or cannot be reordered, and the meaning that the resulting strings have. If there is a problem with that then the problem lies with those rules, rather than NFC which uses them.
