Peter Kirk scripsit: > 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.
C9 says: A process shall not assume that the interpretations of two canonical-equivalent character sequences are distinct. -- "No, John. I want formats that are actually John Cowan useful, rather than over-featured megaliths that http://www.ccil.org/~cowan address all questions by piling on ridiculous http://www.reutershealth.com internal links in forms which are hideously [EMAIL PROTECTED] over-complex." --Simon St. Laurent on xml-dev
