From: "Peter Kirk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>OK, this time you are right and I am wrong; although your definition does not include all canonically equivalent orderings of your "starter sequence" because it excludes ones in which a combining character in class b is ordered between two of class a, a not equal to b.
sequencesA starter sequence (defective or not) is then an unordered set of
You ignore the case of multiple combining characters in the same classof characters having the same combining class. The relative order of each element of this set has no semantic value, and does not influence the canonical equivalence of strings. On the opposite, the relative order of characters that make each element of this set is significant.
in the sequence.
Not at all ! May be with supplementary markup of my sentence
it will be more clear:
A "starter sequence" (defective or not) is then an
_unordered_ set of {
_ordered_ sequences of {
characters having the same combining class
}
}.
Then look at where I used the term "set" defined by this sentence, and the
term "element" refers to element of the unordered set, i.e. the "ordered
sequence of characters having the same combining class".
And no, I did not mix lists. The initial thread was in the main Unicode listThis time you did, by sending to the main list your reply to my posting to the Hebrew list.
as it is a generic problem not specific to Hebrew, but to terminologic and
definition problems.
For once only I am sending this to both lists, as my incorrect statement to one list was cross-posted to the other one and so needs to be corrected on both lists.
In future I will try to keep postings about general issues on the general list and postings going into Hebrew specifics on the Hebrew list. I hope those who reply to such postings will reflect my intentions and not cross-post what I have written without permission (though I have no problem with short quotes from one list on the other one).
-- Peter Kirk [EMAIL PROTECTED] (personal) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) http://www.qaya.org/
