Better technical response than the one got from the guy at Microsoft. Thanks
Dele ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ernest Cline" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "African Oracle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2004 10:27 PM Subject: RE: Just if and where is the then? > > > > > [Original Message] > > From: African Oracle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Date: 5/4/2004 7:04:48 PM > > Subject: Just if and where is the then? > > > > If a can have U+0061 and have a composite that is U+00e2...U+... > > If e can have U+0065 and have a composite that is U+00ea...U+... > > > > Then why is e with accented grave or acute and dot below cannot be > > assigned a single unicode value instead of the combinational values > > 1EB9 0301 and etc.... > > > > Since UNICODE is gradually becoming a defacto, I still think it will not > > be a bad idea to have such composite values. > > > > Dele Olawole > > Take a look at the Unicode Stability Policy [1]. While it does not make > it impossible for there to be a Unicode character LATIN SMALL LETTER E > WITH DOT BELOW AND ACUTE ACCENT that would decompose to > U+1EB9 U+0301, such a character would have to have the Composition > Exclusion property so that it would not appear in any of the Unicode > Normalization Forms. A number of other standards, such as XML expect > the data they contain to be handled in normalized form, hence even if > the precomposed form were available, most software would still prefer > to work with the unprecomposed form. The result is that unless there is > another official character standard that has LATIN SMALL LETTER E > WITH DOT BELOW AND ACUTE ACCENT as a character, there is no > benefit to be gained by encoding such a character in Unicode. Even > then, the benefit is very small as it is only that a transformation from a > single codepoint of that other standard into a single codepoint of the > Unicode standard could be done. That was an important consideration > when Unicode was getting started, but is not particularly important now. > > [1] http://www.unicode.org/standard/stability_policy.html > > > >
