Annoyances from Implementation of Canonical Equivalence
Eli Zaretskii via Unicode
unicode at unicode.org
Fri Oct 18 01:45:14 CDT 2019
> Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2019 21:58:50 +0100
> From: Richard Wordingham via Unicode <unicode at unicode.org>
> > Sounds arbitrary to me. How do we know that all the users will want
> > that?
> If the change from codepoint by codepoint matching is just canonical
> equivalence, then there is no way that the ‘n’ of ‘na’ will be matched
> by the ‘n’ within ‘ñ’.
"Just canonical equivalence" is also quite arbitrary, for the user's
POV. At least IME.
> > > (This doesn't apply to diacritic-ignoring folding.)
> > But the issue _was_ diacritic-ignoring folding.
> Then we don't seem to have any evidence of user discontent arising from
> supporting canonical equivalence.
Again, these are very closely related from user's POV. Most users
don't understand the difference, in fact. They are not Unicode
So maybe I was replying on a very different level, in which case
apologies for taking your time.
More information about the Unicode