Quote/Cytat - Eric Muller <eric.mul...@efele.net> (pią, 16 wrz 2016, 17:47:27):

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.

I apologize for the confusion, that was my fault. I tend to answer too quickly and not precisely enough :-(

On the other hand I'm not sure canonical equivalence is always what I want and expect, but I don't have specific examples at hand.



Prof. dr hab. Janusz S. Bień - Uniwersytet Warszawski (Katedra Lingwistyki Formalnej)
Prof. Janusz S. Bień - University of Warsaw (Formal Linguistics Department)
jsb...@uw.edu.pl, jsb...@mimuw.edu.pl, http://fleksem.klf.uw.edu.pl/~jsbien/

Reply via email to