From: Noveck, Dave (Dave.Noveck@netapp.com)
Date: 01/27/03-11:07:28 AM Z
Message-ID: <C8CF60CFC4D8A74E9945E32CF096548A3790A5@SILVER.nane.netapp.com> From: "Noveck, Dave" <Dave.Noveck@netapp.com> Subject: RE: [Dan.Oscarsson@kiconsulting.se: Comments on NFSv4 rfc3010bis- 05 draft] Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 09:07:28 -0800 OK, I see. Form KC consists of a compatibility decomposition followed by a *canonical* composition. Never mind. -----Original Message----- From: Nicolas Williams [mailto:Nicolas.Williams@sun.com] Sent: Monday, January 27, 2003 11:59 AM To: Noveck, Dave Cc: 'mike@eisler.com'; Spencer Shepler; nfsv4-wg@sunroof.eng.sun.com Subject: Re: [Dan.Oscarsson@kiconsulting.se: Comments on NFSv4 rfc3010bis- 05 draft] Form K would replace the ligature with "f" and "i" - not the other way around. Nico On Sun, Jan 26, 2003 at 12:46:06PM -0800, Noveck, Dave wrote: > OK, so where did I go wrong? > > a) ligature fi followed by "le" and the string "file" are > compatibility equivalent. > > b) If two strings are compatibility equivalent, then > under a K-style normalization form, only one of them > can be valid. > > c) The compatibility composition of "file" is the ligature > fi followed by "le". > > d) Thus ligature fi followed by the string "le" is valid > under normalization form KC. > > e) The string "file" is invalid under normalization form KC. > > QED. > > So if the result e) is false, which of a), b), c), d) are false?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : 03/04/05-01:50:50 AM Z CST