Doug Ewell writes: > Peter Kirk <peterkirk at qaya dot org> wrote: > > > Yes, the compressor can make any canonically equivalent change, not > > just composing composition exclusions but reordering combining marks > > in different classes. The only flaw I see is that the compressor does > > not have to undo these changes on decompression; at least no other > > process is allowed to rely on it having done so. > > I agree with Peter here. I don't think the burden should be on the > decompressor to reverse any operation that the compressor performs, > except for the compression itself.
There's possibly a misreading or misunderstanding about what I call "undoing" custom normalization. What I mean there is that the decompressor can be done to produce a standard NFC or NFD form, independantly of the normalization order or composition exclusions or non-exclusion performed in the compressor. This way, a decompressor can be made compatible with an application that expects a particular normalization form. But if we agree that any application should accept any canonically equivalent string, it's true that this reormalization step in the decompressor is not needed: it's then up to the application using the decompressor to choose its own prefered normalization on input, from the output of the decompressor. __________________________________________________________________ << ella for Spam Control >> has removed Spam messages and set aside Newsletters for me You can use it too - and it's FREE! http://www.ellaforspam.com
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>
