Re: ucs-normalize and diacritics

[K. Handa]

In article <address@hidden>, Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> writes:
> > (encode-char #xa0 'tis620-2533) => 32
> > 
> > which is simply wrong.

> How important is that discrepancy?  After all, tis620-2533 doesn't
> have the #xa0 character, so the situation above should never happen,
> right?

?? It happend when I wrote the code above.  How can you tell that
no one try the same thing?

> OTOH, it is strange to have two charsets that are identical
> except for one character.

However strange it is, it is the fact that those two chararcter sets are
different at that point.  Please see this page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thai_Industrial_Standard_620-2533

> Yes, it could be fixed, but why do we need to jump through hoops to
> keep one more charset, when we already have a charset that is
> identical to it except for one character?

The reason of having tis620-2533 was that it was added before
iso-8859-11.  And, there have been no positive reason of deleting
tis620-2533 even after we added iso-8859-11.  It is better to completely
drop the support of tis620-2533 (i.e. do not keep it as an alias for
iso-8859-11) than make Emacs tell a lie, but I think it is much better
to modify describe-char.

---
K. Handa
address@hidden