> but as Michel mentioned the data does not seem consistent in that case.
You might add that to your report... Mark <https://plus.google.com/114199149796022210033> * * *— Il meglio è l’inimico del bene —* ** On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 7:23 PM, Chris Weber <[email protected]> wrote: > On 10/14/2013 12:40 AM, Mark Davis ☕ wrote: > > For the confusables, the presumption is that implementations have > > already either normalized the input to NFKC or have rejected input that > > is not NFKC. > > Thanks for the explanation Mark. It makes sense for implementations > which want to detect confusability, but as Michel mentioned the data > does not seem consistent in that case. Another case could be > implementations which want to generate confusable strings for testing - > do you think those could be improved by having this extra data? For > example: > > http://unicode.org/cldr/utility/confusables.jsp?a=m&r=None > > > It would probably be worth clarifying this in the text of > > http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr39/#Identifier_Characters. There is an > > upcoming UTC meeting at the start of Nov., so if you want to suggest > > that or any other improvements, you should use the > > http://www.unicode.org/reporting.html. > > Thank you, I'll file a report. > > -- > Best regards, > Chris Weber - [email protected] - http://www.lookout.net > PGP: F18B 2F5D ED81 B30C 58F8 3E49 3D21 FD57 F04B BCF7 >
