Well, of course "unilaterally extending C10" only in the very specific sense defined by Doug, who wrote:OK. So it's Mark, not me, who is unilaterally extending C10.
Where on earth do you get that? I did say that, in practice, NFC should be produced, but that is simply a practical guideline, independent of C10.
Mark
Any approach that ... ignores the Composition Exclusions table, ... is NOT of interest. That amounts to unilaterally extending C10I did rather turn this round: Doug's idea of "unilaterally extending C10" referred to allowing more transformations than C10 does; but my idea of it was to further restrict the allowed transformations e.g. by specifying that transformations should be only into and not away from a normalisation form. Ignoring the Composition Exclusions table is of course irrelevant to C10, as this table relates not to canonical equivalence but to normalisation forms, and C10 has nothing to say about normalisation forms.
You have now made it clear that what you proposed is a practical guideline, but as originally presented in your "too brief" note
it did look more like a proposed rule for a compressor, and one which is more restrictive than C10.I would say that a compressor can normalize, if (a) when decompressing it produces NFC, and (b) it advertises that it normalizes.
-- Peter Kirk [EMAIL PROTECTED] (personal) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) http://www.qaya.org/
