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

Re: [Ltru] Canonical variants



From: ltru-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:ltru-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of Mark Davis

> Unicode ordering is not necessarily a good model, since
> it applies to characters that reflect real usage, whereas
> BCP47 is completely responsible for the meaning and syntax
> of these subtags.

The biggest way that Unicode breaks down as an analogy is that combining marks can interact graphically in terms of positional ordering, which gives a very transparent metaphor for encoded ordering, whereas for our subtags there is no obvious metaphor for what subtag ordering might mean other than increasing degrees of specificity -- and that is typically relevant in cases where a prefix is given, and always irrelevant if the subtags are fully independent (e.g. rozaj and fonipa).



Peter
_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru at ietf.org
https://www.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.