GoogleCodeExporter
commented
9 years ago From:Asmus Freytag sent to emoji4unicode:
Please add this to the per-character notes.
Andrew asked:
Will MUSICAL NOTE, ifencoded, have a compatibility decomposition to EIGHTH NOTE ?
My reply:
My counter-question: would that be helpful to anyone?
A cross-reference would be one thing (that would be clearly helpful). A
formal compatibility decomposition is something that is to be applied in
the context of NFKC or NFKD. Applying either of these normalization
forms to arbitrary text is fraught with problems - so the only case
where the use of, say, NFKC can be unhesitatingly recommended is in the
context of identifier matching. The reason for that is that identifiers
don't allow characters for which NFKC of NFKC is problematical to begin
with. Identifiers would not allow either of the musical notes.
Therefore, the one recommended application of NFKC or NFKD would not
actually make a difference in this case.
EIGHTH note exists in SHIFT-JIS at 81F4. If the emoji set codes MUSICAL
NOTE as an extension to SHIFT-JIS, source separation requires that it be
given a different code from EIGHTH NOTE otherwise message text using
both standard SHIFT-JIS and the emoji extensions would not always roundtrip.
A better approach than calling the new character "musical" note would be
to call out that its usage is by definition unrelated from musical
notation (while EIGTH NOTE is unified with the use in musical notation).
If the emoji representation is always more prominent, it could be
encoded as BOLD EIGHTH NOTE, or LARGE EIGHTH NOTE as the case may be,
and that would allow it to get a standard compat. decomposition for
stylistic difference as is done by precedent. If it is merely conceived
of as "NOTE, DURATION UNSPECIFIED" then there's no need for a
decomposition, because the difference is semantic.Original comment by katmomoi on 10 Jan 2009 at 2:19
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
markus.icuon 9 Jan 2009 at 11:13