#736 compatibility characters among East Asian logographs

[Jens Østergaard Petersen]

CH-LanguagesCharacterSets.xml
/div/div[2]/div[7]/div[2]/p[1]

Together with essentially analogous issues arising from the encoding of certain East Asian ideographs, this
=>
This

I think Christian must have thinking of compatibility characters among East Asian logographs. Chinese characters do use base character/combining marks, but many compatibility characters occur among CJK characters.

As a consequence, leave out:

It should be noted however, that normalization as discussed in the documents above does not cover the problems mentioned above with East-Asian characters, except for issues connected with composed characters in Hangul.

[Hugh A. Cayless]

Assigning to James for review.

[James Cummings]

I believe the suggested edits are reasonable and if no one from council objects will implement.

[Jens Østergaard Petersen]

I will ask Wittern what he meant.

[Jens Østergaard Petersen]

I now see a fatal typo in my posting: "Chinese characters do use base character/combining marks" should be "Chinese characters do not use base character/combining marks".

[Jens Østergaard Petersen]

I have asked Christian Wittern and he writes to me that "At this point in the document, this is still essentially a general statement without reference to a specific Unicode recommendation, which is coming later. This might not technically be covered by the current iteration of the Unicode Normalization, but this does not mean that one should not think of this issue, which is why I put it in." So here he is (as I read him) talking about normalization in a broader sense, something that ideally should also (or could eventually) concern compatibility graphs.

About the passage I argue should be deleted, he writes: "the whole point of this and the previous thing is to remind you that you can't completely rely on Unicode rules (which might change while you are not looking), but should set your one [scil. own] rules for the East-Asian characters. And when I wrote this more than 10 years ago, nobody would have thought what a mess would come of all of this... " While this is true, I don't think there have been any changes in the Unicode rules in this area during the last 10 years.

Wittern ends up with: "But like secular law, the book is changed by those in power at any given moment, so in consultation with the council, do what you think needs to be done..." …

[Syd Bauman]

Council sub-group saw no reason not to implement this change, and did so. SM fixed in r13233.