Important Notice: Our web hosting provider recently started charging us for additional visits, which was unexpected. In response, we're seeking donations. Depending on the situation, we may explore different monetization options for our Community and Expert Contributors. It's crucial to provide more returns for their expertise and offer more Expert Validated Answers or AI Validated Answers. Learn more about our hosting issue here.

Why bother defining named sequences? Why not just encode the character, instead?

0
Posted

Why bother defining named sequences? Why not just encode the character, instead?

0

When text elements that people want to treat as “a character” are already representable in Unicode text by a sequence of already encoded characters, encoding another precomposed character for that sequence introduces multiple representations of the same thing. Such an action would undermine the stability of Unicode text normalization, which is subject to very strict stability guarantees.

Related Questions

What is your question?

*Sadly, we had to bring back ads too. Hopefully more targeted.

Experts123