On Mon, Jan 21, 2008 at 10:12:01AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
The fact is, text-as-string-of-codepoints (let's make the "codepoints"
obvious, so that there is no ambiguity, but I'd also like to make it clear
that a codepoint *is* how a Unicode character is defined, and a Unicode
"string" is actually *defined* to be a sequence of codepoints, and totally
independent of normalization!) is fine.
Code point is a unique numerical value assigned to every Unicode character.
Also, every Unicode character has a uniqie name assigned to it. There are
some other non-unique properties that every Unicode has. So, to say that
a Unicode character is just a code point is not exactly correct, because
the code point is one of properties of a unicode character. But, yes, any
Unicode character can be identified by its code point. So, it is one to
one relation.
Dmitry