UCA unnecessary collation weight 0000
Philippe Verdy via Unicode
unicode at unicode.org
Sat Nov 3 19:03:30 CDT 2018
Le ven. 2 nov. 2018 à 22:27, Ken Whistler <kenwhistler at att.net> a écrit :
> On 11/2/2018 10:02 AM, Philippe Verdy via Unicode wrote:
> I was replying not about the notational repreentation of the DUCET data
> table (using [.0000...] unnecessarily) but about the text of UTR#10 itself.
> Which remains highly confusive, and contains completely unnecesary steps,
> and just complicates things with absoiluytely no benefit at all by
> introducing confusion about these "0000".
> Sorry, Philippe, but the confusion that I am seeing introduced is what you
> are introducing to the unicode list in the course of this discussion.
> UTR#10 still does not explicitly state that its use of "0000" does not
> mean it is a valid "weight", it's a notation only
> No, it is explicitly a valid weight. And it is explicitly and normatively
> referred to in the specification of the algorithm. See UTS10-D8 (and
> subsequent definitions), which explicitly depend on a definition of "A
> collation weight whose value is zero." The entire statement of what are
> primary, secondary, tertiary, etc. collation elements depends on that
> definition. And see the tables in Section 3.2, which also depend on those
Ok is is a valid "weight" when taken *isolately*, but it is invalid as a
weight at any level.
This does not change the fact because weights are always relative to a
specific level for which they are defined, and 0000 does not belong to any
one. This weight is completely artificial and introduced completely
needlessly: all levels are completely defined by a closed range of weights,
all of them being non-0000, and all ranges being numerically separated
(with the primary level using the largest range).
I can reread again and again (even the sections you cite), but there's
absolutely NO need of this articificial "0000" anywhere (any clause
introducing it or using it to define something can be safely removed)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Unicode