[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Ltru] Re: zh-hakka



Martin Duerst wrote:
 
> i-hak -> zh-hakka
> zh-hakka -> zh-hak
 
> I think the following would be preferable:
 
> i-hak -> zh-hak
> zh-hakka -> zh-hak

Yes.   It would also eliminate the only pointer containing a
"non-variant".  We discussed this in the last round, I don't
recall the arguments against it.  Maybe the more convoluted
4646 pointers were inspired by UnicodeData.txt (?)

> This would avoid the need for repetition when calculating
> the preferred value.

It also simplifies pointer checks, there's never a danger of
A -> B -> C -> A, if A *_must_* point to something that has
no further pointer.

Frank



_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru




Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.