Talk:Unicode compatibility characters

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Dispute First Section[edit]

The title of the page is "Unicode compatibility characters", however the first segment of this page covers "Canonical and Non-canonical". Strictly-speaking, compatibility characters are all non-canonical. A more accurate title would be "Unicode Character Normalization". That way this page could cover a discussion of Canonical and Non-canonical characters as well as freely cover the normalization process as described by both the Unicode Standard and UAX #15. The page could also link to UTS #10 (Unicode Collation Algorithm or UCA) since the first step of the UCA is to normalize a string to Normalization Form D (NFD - Canonical Decomposition) as per UAX #15. Edit - After taking a second look at the article, the actual dispute is solely over the first section. It serves little purpose and should be merged into the already existing article on Unicode Normalization. 97.112.192.131 (talk) 01:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Page has multiple issues[edit]

This reads like someone's webpage that alternates between describing how things are, and ranting about how Unicode is inadequate and the Consortium is hypocritical. There are no references beyond the opaque Unicode standard document, and none of the strong opinions there are backed up with references. Jaysbro (talk) 13:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, the claim that the mathematical Hebrew symbols "for all practical purposes...share the same semantics as their compatibility equivalent...Hebrew letter" is inaccurate and potentially misleading. One big reason that they are not interchangeable is that true Hebrew letters have inherent right-to-left ordering and the mathematical symbols do not! There's a lot of POV in referring to certain decisions as "unfortunate" and in lumping characters that are not strictly compatibility characters but an editor thinks are redundant in some way in with true compatibility characters. Note to self: clean up this article. There is also room for expansion, e.g. on which legacy encodings the various compatibility characters are meant for round-trip compatibility with (which is not addressed by the standard, and would require some research). — Gwalla | Talk 18:37, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Probably considered a primary source since it's an email on the Unicode mailing list by somebody who was involved in the decisions, but this contains an informal explanation for and history of compatibility characters. — Gwalla | Talk 23:13, 28 May 2014 (UTC)