Arcane Jill wrote: > The intention of canonical equivalence is that the glyphs should > display the same - otherwise we'd need precomposed versions of, well, > everything.
The intention of canonical equivalence is that *all* operations that involve "interpreting" the text treat two canonically equivalent strings the same. This is by no means limited to display. One of the first things that surprised me when I was first learning about Unicode in 1992 (from the big softcover 1.0 books) was how much attention was paid to processing issues. Topics like bidirectionality, backing store, sorting and searching, and what became known as the "character-glyph model" were all discussed. It was a real eye-opener for me to see a formal character standard that didn't just treat characters as something to be typed, displayed, and printed. -Doug Ewell Fullerton, California http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/
