Annoyances from Implementation of Canonical Equivalence

Eli Zaretskii via Unicode unicode at
Fri Oct 18 01:45:14 CDT 2019

> Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2019 21:58:50 +0100
> From: Richard Wordingham via Unicode <unicode at>
> > 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 mailing list