On Thu, 17 Jan 2008, Mark Junker wrote:
quoted text
> 
> Sorry, but you're using different characters that look the same. But Kevins
> point was that it's a different thing if you use two characters that look the
> same or the same character with different encodings.

But that's exactly the case he gave - 'ä' vs 'a¨' are exactly that: 
different strings (not even characters: the second is actually a 
multi-character) that just look the same.

You try to twist the argument by just claiming that they are the same 
"character". They aren't, unless you *define* character to be the same as 
"glyph". Of course, if you claim that, then you can always support your 
argument, but I claim that is a bogus and incorrect axiom to start with!

Too many people confuse "character" and "glyph". They are different.

See, for example

	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unicode

and notice the *many* places where they try to make that distinction 
between "character" and "glyph" clear (and also "code values", which are 
the actual bytes that encode a character).

See also

	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unicode_normalization

and realize that a Unicode sequence is a sequence of *characters* even if 
it is not normalized! Those things are still characters, when they are the 
"simpler" non-combined characters.

You are trying to make a totally BOGUS argument, and you base it on the 
INCORRECT basis that the TWO characters 'a'+'¨' somehow aren't independent 
characters. They *are*. They are *different* characters from 'ä', even 
though they may be "Canonically equivalent" as a sequence.

The fact is that "equivalent" does not mean "same". Why cannot people 
accept that?

			Linus
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html