Path: csiph.com!news.swapon.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: Peter Pearson <pkpearson@nowhere.invalid>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.python
Subject: Re: Unicode normalisation [was Re: [beginner] What's wrong?]
Date: 8 Apr 2016 18:03:24 GMT
Lines: 23
Message-ID: <dmqa3cFhh8iU1@mid.individual.net>
References: <ndmq58$lba$1@dont-email.me> <CAPTjJmqtp=uhTE7FE=3mN7xZr40RCPNgxx3Zm5eLZ-7iWugDMQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAGgTfkOhrDKBCDmL5ksU6k9-dduwjCXSV_N3r2jruJwfA4A4XA@mail.gmail.com> <mailman.365.1459608928.28225.python-list@python.org> <87bn5sqcac.fsf@elektro.pacujo.net> <56ffedf1$0$1611$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> <87h9fkq7tl.fsf@elektro.pacujo.net> <3524319.g0I1c1cpMS@PointedEars.de> <afdd8a6f-06d7-47a7-95fe-b69a48b746f7@googlegroups.com> <2796705.edb3E9ArW3@PointedEars.de> <d7013402-5d60-4e28-9ed7-92634f43fd1d@googlegroups.com> <1584744.4h7ToaqLat@PointedEars.de> <5705b9ef$0$1611$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> <dmnhhaFq3t3U1@mid.individual.net> <570748ec$0$1620$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> <dmq7lmFgf33U1@mid.individual.net> <874mbcgfmd.fsf@elektro.pacujo.net> <CAPTjJmpKa0W0ketunJiMBnjspqbwaANcP-_9AdB3vgynOw4NJg@mail.gmail.com> <mailman.95.1460137824.2253.python-list@python.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: individual.net 0qNgD/2r3OSn7CqT9LHKRAvp1cQWbZL8ir26OEjq9z+cr3qe3t
Cancel-Lock: sha1:QXYHOGu6edpu9WO9wviVpyYkgqM=
User-Agent: slrn/pre1.0.0-18 (Linux)
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.python:106701

On Sat, 9 Apr 2016 03:50:16 +1000, Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 3:44 AM, Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> wrote:
[snip]
>> (As for ligatures, I understand that there might be quite a bit of
>> legacy software that dedicated code points and code pages for ligatures.
>> Translating that legacy software to Unicode was made more
>> straightforward by introducing analogous codepoints to Unicode. Unicode
>> has quite many such codepoints: µ, K, Ω etc.)
>
> More specifically, Unicode solved the problems that *codepages* had
> posed. And one of the principles of its design was that every
> character in every legacy encoding had a direct representation as a
> Unicode codepoint, allowing bidirectional transcoding for
> compatibility. Perhaps if Unicode had existed from the dawn of
> computing, we'd have less characters; but backward compatibility is
> way too important to let a narrow purity argument sway it.

I guess with that historical perspective the current situation
seems almost inevitable.  Thanks.  And thanks to Steven D'Aprano
for other relevant insights.

-- 
To email me, substitute nowhere->runbox, invalid->com.