Kenneth Whistler scripsit:
> However, there were character encoding standards committees,
> predating the UTC, which did not understand this principle,
> and which encoded a character for the �ngstrom sign as a
> separate symbol. In most cases this would not be a problem,
> but in at least one East Asian encoding, an �ngstrom sign
> was encoded separately from {an uppercase � of the Latin script},
> resulting in two encodings for what really is the same thing,
> from a character encoding perspective.
But IIRC they did so in two separate character encoding standards
which the UTC for reasons of its own decided to treat as one standard.
> Note that there a also piles of "compability characters" in
> Unicode which have no decomposition mapping whatsoever,
> and which thus are completely unimpacted by normalization.
If someone undertook to prepare a draft list of these, would the
UTC consider blessing it, in corrected form? It is disconcerting
that the notion "compatibility character" is so fuzzily defined.
--
John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.reutershealth.com ccil.org/~cowan
Dievas dave dantis; Dievas duos duonos --Lithuanian proverb
Deus dedit dentes; deus dabit panem --Latin version thereof
Deity donated dentition;
deity'll donate doughnuts --English version by Muke Tever
God gave gums; God'll give granary --Version by Mat McVeagh
