On 29/10/2003 11:53, John Cowan wrote:
... A
rendering engine is *not* entitled to misbehave if it receives <a, dot-below,
cedilla> and try to place the dot between the "a" glyph and the cedilla;
this is a direct consequence of the conformance requirement that processes
not distinguish (unless they have special purposes in doing so) between
canonical equivalents.
Is this actually a conformance requirement? I thought I understood the
following: A rendering engine which fails to render canonical
equivalents identically, or fails to render certain orders sensibly, is
not doing what the Unicode standard tells it that it must do. But it is
not technically non-conformant because the statement that it must render
canonical equivalents identically is not in a conformance clause. This
implies that software producers who produce rendering engines which are
deficient in this way can still claim conformance to Unicode. This is an
ambiguity which, in my opinion, should be resolved in a future edition
of the standard.
--
Peter Kirk
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (personal)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (work)
http://www.qaya.org/
