the discussion so far
Matthew Flatt
(16 Jul 2005 12:41 UTC)
|
||
(missing)
|
||
(missing)
|
||
Re: the discussion so far
Alex Shinn
(20 Jul 2005 02:50 UTC)
|
||
Re: the discussion so far
Thomas Bushnell BSG
(20 Jul 2005 02:56 UTC)
|
||
Re: the discussion so far
Alex Shinn
(20 Jul 2005 03:15 UTC)
|
||
Re: the discussion so far
Thomas Bushnell BSG
(20 Jul 2005 03:24 UTC)
|
||
Re: the discussion so far
Alex Shinn
(20 Jul 2005 03:38 UTC)
|
||
Re: the discussion so far
Thomas Bushnell BSG
(20 Jul 2005 03:49 UTC)
|
||
Re: the discussion so far
John.Cowan
(20 Jul 2005 04:24 UTC)
|
||
Re: the discussion so far
Thomas Bushnell BSG
(20 Jul 2005 04:27 UTC)
|
||
Re: the discussion so far
John.Cowan
(20 Jul 2005 04:58 UTC)
|
||
Re: the discussion so far
Thomas Bushnell BSG
(20 Jul 2005 05:04 UTC)
|
||
(missing)
|
||
(missing)
|
||
Re: the discussion so far
bear
(20 Jul 2005 02:45 UTC)
|
||
Re: the discussion so far John.Cowan (20 Jul 2005 03:56 UTC)
|
||
Re: the discussion so far
Jorgen Schaefer
(16 Jul 2005 13:05 UTC)
|
||
Re: the discussion so far
Matthew Flatt
(16 Jul 2005 13:21 UTC)
|
||
Re: the discussion so far
Jorgen Schaefer
(16 Jul 2005 13:58 UTC)
|
||
Re: the discussion so far
Thomas Bushnell BSG
(17 Jul 2005 02:42 UTC)
|
||
Re: the discussion so far
Thomas Bushnell BSG
(17 Jul 2005 02:57 UTC)
|
||
Re: the discussion so far
Jorgen Schaefer
(17 Jul 2005 03:33 UTC)
|
||
Re: the discussion so far
bear
(16 Jul 2005 18:07 UTC)
|
||
Re: the discussion so far
John.Cowan
(17 Jul 2005 04:49 UTC)
|
||
Re: the discussion so far
Thomas Bushnell BSG
(17 Jul 2005 02:40 UTC)
|
bear scripsit: > The particular example I'm thinking of is splitting strings > between base codepoint and combining codepoint. You get two > substrings, and the second one is syntactically invalid. Please point to a place in the Unicode Standard where any sequence of Unicode scalar values is said to be "syntactically invalid". > If you print the first substring and then the second, the > combining codepoint is usually printed as though it modified > a space character that isn't actually there. That's one possibility; it can also be rendered on top of a dotted-circle, which is what is done in the Unicode charts. In any case, glyph rendering is not part of the Standard. > If something > normalizes the substrings first, the space may actually be > added, although it wasn't present in the original string. That turns out not to be the case. The normalized form of a string consisting of one combining character is itself. > Gah. Encodings, normalization forms, endianness, and all the > rest of it. When you want to write a "character" any of a dozen > things can happen. Blurring significant distinctions that have taken a long time to nail down isn't very conducive to clear thinking. -- Not to perambulate John Cowan <xxxxxx@reutershealth.com> the corridors http://www.reutershealth.com during the hours of repose http://www.ccil.org/~cowan in the boots of ascension. --Sign in Austrian ski-resort hotel