On 9/16/2016 8:30 AM, Janusz S. Bien wrote:
Quote/Cytat - Eric Muller <eric.mul...@efele.net> (pią, 16 wrz 2016, 17:03:54):

On 9/16/2016 6:52 AM, Janusz S. Bień wrote:
(when working on a corpus of historical Polish we
noticed some cases where standard Unicode equivalence was not

I'm very interested to know more about those cases.

For our search engine we were unable to use compatibility equivalence "out of the box" for splitting the ligature because it also converted long s to short s while we wanted to preserve the distinction.

I am interested in the problems with *canonical* equivalence. I thought that you were talking about those before.

Compatibility equivalence is a completely different beast. It is, IMHO, too coarse a tool and best forgotten. For any particular task, it's typically doing too much (e.g. long/short s folding in your case) and too little (not everything you need). There was an attempt at improving the situation, by providing a whole bunch of fine grained, targeted transformations (http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr30/), but that did not pan out.



Reply via email to