Content deleted Content added
→Usage: new section |
|||
Line 27:
:I agree it would be nice to find a source that says the exact reasons. There are better quotes in some other Unicode articles on Wikipedia. However, except for the precomposed characters, all your reasons are the same as "an exising character set had N ways of encoding this character and thus Unicode needed N ways".
:Precomposed characters were certainly mostly driven by the need to make it easy to convert existing encodings, and to make rendering readable output from most Unicode easy. There may have been existing character sets with both precomposed and combining diacritics, if so this would fall into the first explanation. But I doubt that would have led to the vast number of combined characters in Unicode.[[User:Spitzak|Spitzak]] ([[User talk:Spitzak|talk]]) 18:58, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
== Usage ==
This article says nothing about Unicode equivalence usage. This mean there is misisng some text.
I do not know many software which relies on/supports Unicode equivalence, but there is at least one: Wikipedia.
Unicode équivalence is recognized by Wikipedia software in a way which allows users of both NFD and NFC systems to access the same page-article despite technical internal NF differentiation.
Might be that some people woul need a reference to proove this, but I do not bring any refernce, only this demonstration:
For instance those two pages are a single article:
* http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identit%C3%A9
* http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identite%CC%81
The same does occur with Cancún: [[Canc%C3%BAn]] and [[Cancu%CC%81n]] (despite colors might differ for any obscure and not obious reason):
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canc%C3%BAn
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancu%CC%81n
I suggest to use this information in a way to improve the article, without making wikipedia article any «how to use wikipedia». [[Special:Contributions/86.75.160.141|86.75.160.141]] ([[User talk:86.75.160.141|talk]]) 19:14, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
| |||