Subject: Re: [idn] REORDERING: stability issues and UTC solutions

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 15:15:26 EDT

In a message dated 2001-10-21 7:22:07 Pacific Daylight Time, [email-masked] 
writes:

>  My  question was that:
>    1) newly-approved TAGALOG characters X,Y  have   NFC X -> Y,

This is simply not going to happen.  Unicode/10646 has promised us they are 
not going to add more compatibility characters, though, believe me, they have 
had plenty of requests.

>  Future TAGALOG may provides two sets of TAGALOG basic alphabets.
>  One set A in official lexicographical ordering and the other set B 
>  is in frequecy ordering (sub-optimal one OKAY) with 1:1 NFKC defined 
>  from A onto B.

Are you actually suggesting that UTC encode each character twice?

>  IF UTC accepts REORDERING as an official normalization form like 
>  NF-REORDERING , then we need no such tricks like above, and
>  TAGALOG support can be done within that NF in the new 
>  NAMEPREP steps:  mapping/NFKC/PROHIBIT and then NF-REORDERING .

Is this scheme of reordering for the sake of compression really UTC's concern?

I would suggest that Soobok read not only UTR #15, but also the page called 
"Unicode Policies" on the Unicode web site.  There is a very clear 
description of some things Unicode (and by extension ISO/IEC JTC1/SC2/WG2) 
simply will not do.  It may be a real eye-opener for some.

-Doug Ewell
 Fullerton, California

---

From: "James Seng/Personal" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 09:27:25 +0800

> Is this scheme of reordering for the sake of compression really UTC's
concern?

Actually, they might. See UTS#6 A Standard Compression.

But of course, this discussion is not for IDN WG.

-James Seng