On Thu, 7 Feb 2013 03:54:38 +0100 Philippe Verdy <[email protected]> wrote:
> 2013/2/6 Richard Wordingham <[email protected]>: > > On Wed, 6 Feb 2013 20:35:04 +0000 > > I <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> The UCA default weighting necessarily has many 'defective' > >> collation elements - every character forms a collating element! > > > > Correction: Every non-precomposed character forms a collating > > element. <U+00E1 LATIN SMALL LETTER A WITH ACUTE> is *not* a > > collating element in the default collation. > > At the primary collation level ? The corrected statement and its example are true statements. It is true that at the *primary level* adding <U+00E1> as a collating element with the appropriate collating elements would make no difference to the default collation. > Reread what I wrote, this was a first > condition (I volontarily ignore all *ignorable* collation elements, > i.e. ignortable at collation level 1). You said, on 5 February, "A process can be FULLY conforming by preserving the canonical equivalence and treating ALL strings that are canonically equivalent, without having to normalize them in any recommanded form, or performing any reordering in its backing store, or it can choose to normalize to any other form that is convenient for that process (so it could be NFC or NFD, or something else)" There's no qualification there disqualifying collation at the secondary level from being a 'process' which may or may not be conforming. Even working only at the primary level, there are valid primary level collations for which this statement is not true. Your argument to invalidate my counterexample would invalidate the Burmese (my) collation in CLDR Version 22.1. Any attempts to erect a natural-seeming disqualifying condition are also likely to disqualify the Tibetan elements of the default collation of the UCA. Richard.
