From: Philippe Verdy (verdy_p@wanadoo.fr)
Date: Wed Aug 13 2003 - 17:52:27 EDT
From: "Peter Kirk" <peter.r.kirk@ntlworld.com>
> I note that there is no line break opportunity in <space, NBSP>. But
is
> there one after the space in <space, RLM, NBSP>? If so, <RLM, NBSP,
> combining character> has a third advantage, that it gives the right
line
> break opportunity when this sequence is word initial, which it
wouldn't
> do without the RLM.
How can we be so complicated when a new base character with
the needed properties would be much simpler and easier to support
in implementations?
What is wrong with the encoding of new recommanded alternatives
to SPACE or NBSP, i.e. an invisible symbol, an invisible LTR letter,
an invisible RTL letter? This way we can fix some issues in the current
text of UAX'es but recommand that new writers use a new base
character which will behave correctly without those too complex
hacks that users and implementers won't understand.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Aug 13 2003 - 18:25:47 EDT