Kenneth Whistler <kenw at sybase dot com> wrote: > I don't think either of our recommendations here are specific > to compression issues.
They're not, but compression is what I'm focusing on right now, and your recommendations do *apply* to compression. > Basically, if a process tinkers around with changing sequences > to their canonical equivalents, then it is advisable that > the end result actually *be* in one of the normalization > forms, either NFD or NFC, and that this be explicitly documented > as what the process does. Otherwise, you are just tinkering > and leaving the data in an indeterminate (although still > canonically equivalent) state. OK, then I suppose I should play devil's advocate and ask Peter's and Philippe's question again: If C10 only restricts the modifications to "canonically equivalent sequences," why should there be an additional restriction that further limits them to NFC or NFD? Or, put another way, shouldn't such a restriction be part of C10, if it is important? -Doug Ewell Fullerton, California http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/
