On Fri, Jan 18, 2008 at 11:19:21AM +0100, Peter Karlsson wrote:
quoted text
> Linus Torvalds:
> 
> > But that's exactly the case he gave - 'ä' vs 'a¨' are exactly that: 
> > different strings (not even characters: the second is actually a 
> > multi-character) that just look the same.
> 
> But they are not different strings, they are canonically equivalent as
> far as Unicode is concerned.

There are canonically equivalent, but they are different sequences
of characters as Unicode is concerned. In one case, we have one
character in the other case, we have two characters that canonically
equivalent to the first one.

quoted text
> They're even supposed to map to the same
> glyph (if the font has an "ä", it should display it in both cases, if
> it has an "a" and a combining diaeresis, it should make up one).

By defition, sequences of characters that are canonically equivalent
are both visual and functional equivalent...

quoted text
> You cannot do a binary comparison of text to see if two strings are
> equivalent.

Of course, you can't. Who argues otherwise?

quoted text
> > You try to twist the argument by just claiming that they are the same
> > "character". They aren't, unless you *define* character to be the
> > same as "glyph".
> 
> Whereas you are confusing characters and code points.

I am afraid it is you who confuses "characters" with "abstract
characters", there is no place in the standard saying that
"characters" are "abstract characters" only. On contrary, the
term "characters" is used to refer non abstract characters.

Dmitry
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html