On 2009-10-30 14:07:06 +0000, Geoff Clare wrote:
> I assume in rules 1 and 2 (and the conclusion from them) you meant
> to write "state-independent" rather than "state-dependent".
Yes (bad copy-paste).
> Yes, there does seem to be a flaw in my reasoning. Trying to mix
> formal logic and natural language statements probably wasn't such
> a good idea. My original intention was to present a different
> argument, but then I thought of the logic-based argument and
> switched to that thinking it was stronger. The other argument is...
>
> If the intention was that characters in all locales can have
> state-dependent encodings, then the text:
>
> In locales other than the POSIX locale, a character may have a
> state-dependent encoding.
>
> would not have been worded that way. The only possible reason
> for putting "other than the POSIX locale" in the text is to
> make the POSIX locale an exception to that general rule.
I agree. I think that's why David-Sarah Hopwood said:
*To be pedantic*, this does not actually say that in the POSIX locale,
a character shall not have a state-dependent encoding (*even if it was
intended to imply that*).
I wonder whether the text should be changed to be more rigorous and
say exactly what it intends to say. Something like:
In the POSIX locale, a character must not have a state-dependent
encoding.
--
Vincent Lefèvre <vincent@vinc17.net> - Web: <http://www.vinc17.net/>
100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <http://www.vinc17.net/blog/>
Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / Arénaire project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)
|