Murray said:
> MathML does have markup to extend diacritics across arbitrary numbers of
> characters and it's not likely that MathML would use the CGJ for this
> purpose.
...which implies that we would also need to make an addition
to UTR #20, Unicode in XML and other Markup Languages, before
the UTC could really approve the concept. Another reason to
go slow and make sure all the angles are deliberated (and
trisected) first.
> But it would be handy for representing such expressions in
> plain-text Unicode.
I agree -- as for the dictionary example that started this thread.
However, it might make sense to make an implementation guideline
that would constrain any such mechanism to double diacritics and
suggest that people move to generic markup mechanisms if they
need more. Thus:
X CGJ X CGJ combining-breve
But not:
X CGJ X CGJ X CGJ combining-breve
etc.
This would keep the expected plain text scope down, and would
minimize the size of the ligation entries in fonts -- probably
a good idea for performance -- without significantly cutting down
the usefulness of the mechanism for plain text.
My guess is that well over 99.9% of the use of these beasties
in what could arguably be called plain text is application of
diacritics over/under a digraph. Application over or under a tri- or
higher-order multigraph must be very rare indeed -- in part
just because anybody trying to use such things in print (or
on typewriters, or whatever) would have run into technical
difficulties and other pushback in the first place.
--Ken
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Mar 05 2002 - 21:53:00 EST