confusing notation in the ZERO WIDTH NON-JOINER contextual rule

[John C Klensin]

Patrik,

Small suggestion to make this extra-clear:

--On Thursday, August 09, 2012 11:06 +0200 Patrik Fältström
<paf at frobbit.se> wrote:

>...
> NEW:
> 
> In A:
> 
> Code point:
>...
> For the rule to be evaluated to True for the label, it MUST be
> evaluated to True for every occurrence of Code point in the
> label.

NEWER:

	For the rule to be evaluated to True for the label, it
	MUST be evaluated separately for every occurrence of the
	Code point in the label; each of those evaluations must
	result in TRUE.

Or something to that effect.  Given the confusion that has
occurred already, saving a few words is not our friend.

    john





> 
> In A.1:
> 
> Rule Set:
>   False;
>   If Canonical_Combining_Class(Before(cp)) .eq.  Virama Then
> True;   If cp .eq. \u200C .and.
> RegExpMatch((Joining_Type:{L,D})(Joining_Type:T)*cp
> (Joining_Type:T)*(Joining_Type:{R,D})) Then True;
> 
>   Patrik
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Idna-update mailing list
> Idna-update at alvestrand.no
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update