[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Character folding in the pretest
From: |
Clément Pit--Claudel |
Subject: |
Re: Character folding in the pretest |
Date: |
Thu, 4 Feb 2016 14:52:45 -0500 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.1 |
On 02/04/2016 02:35 PM, Óscar Fuentes wrote:
> Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> writes:
>
>>> I see your point, but you are talking about accents all the time. In
>>> Spanish `n' and `ñ' are different letters. `n' matching `ñ' is no
>>> different than `p' matching `q'.
>>
>> Unicode disagrees:
>>
>> M-: (get-char-code-property ?ñ 'decomposition) RET
>>
>> => (110 771)
>>
>> 110 is 'n' and 771 is U+0303 NON-SPACING TILDE, a combining accent.
>
> AFAIK Unicode doesn't mandate what the Spanish alphabet is.
>
> I thought that the point of the feature was to provide searching with
> support for character equivalence classes, which is very useful for the
> case of Spanish (and other languages, I'm sure). But you are saying that
> the feature is about how the characters are encoded by the computer and
> not about how they are used by people. If that is true, it should be
> disabled by default.
Why? This feature is simply folding as specified by the Unicode standard.
Hopefully the way it is implemented will indeed lend itself to future
extensions; using it for user-defined classes of substitutions would be nice.
But I don't understand why the possibility of fancier (though less clearly
defined) folding should disqualify this feature from becoming the default.
Also, it's not easy (I'd guess not possible) to give any sort of precise
meaning to ‘how characters are used by people’. I still find this simple
character folding quite useful; I just accept that it's visual folding, not
semantic folding (and this list is well aware of the difficulties that arise
when one tries to assign semantic meaning to characters; cf. the ‘’ vs `'
debate). The semantics of this simple folding are as uncontroversial as can be;
we're following an established standard. Maybe there's a better behaved notion
of folding out there, but I'm not sure why its existence is relevant to the
choice of a default, since we don't have an implementation (nor a spec) for
that alternative.
Clément.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
- Re: Character folding in the pretest, (continued)
- Re: Character folding in the pretest, Eli Zaretskii, 2016/02/08
- Re: Character folding in the pretest, Werner LEMBERG, 2016/02/08
- Re: Character folding in the pretest, Marcin Borkowski, 2016/02/08
- Re: Character folding in the pretest, Eli Zaretskii, 2016/02/08
- RE: Character folding in the pretest, Drew Adams, 2016/02/08
- Re: Character folding in the pretest, Richard Stallman, 2016/02/09
- RE: Character folding in the pretest, Drew Adams, 2016/02/09
- Re: Character folding in the pretest, Rasmus, 2016/02/06
- Re: Character folding in the pretest, Eli Zaretskii, 2016/02/04
- Re: Character folding in the pretest, Óscar Fuentes, 2016/02/04
- Re: Character folding in the pretest,
Clément Pit--Claudel <=
- Re: Character folding in the pretest, Eli Zaretskii, 2016/02/04
- Re: Character folding in the pretest, Clément Pit--Claudel, 2016/02/04
- Re: Character folding in the pretest, Eli Zaretskii, 2016/02/04
- Re: Character folding in the pretest, Yuri Khan, 2016/02/04
- Re: Character folding in the pretest, Óscar Fuentes, 2016/02/04
- Re: Character folding in the pretest, Clément Pit--Claudel, 2016/02/04
- Re: Character folding in the pretest, Óscar Fuentes, 2016/02/04
- Re: Character folding in the pretest, Clément Pit--Claudel, 2016/02/04
- Re: Character folding in the pretest, Óscar Fuentes, 2016/02/04
- Re: Character folding in the pretest, Eli Zaretskii, 2016/02/04