Re: Coloured diacritics (Was: Transcoding Tamil in the presence of markup)

From: Christopher John Fynn (cfynn@gmx.net)
Date: Wed Dec 10 2003 - 21:54:28 EST

  • Next message: Kenneth Whistler: "Re: Text Editors and Canonical Equivalence (was Coloured diacritics)"

    Peter Kirk wrote:

    >Consider the following:

    > (1) <span class="black-text">{U+00E9}</span>
    > (2) <span class="black-text">e{U+0301}</span>
    > (3) <span class="black-text">e<span
    > class="black-text">{U+0301}</span></span>
    > (4) <span class="black-text">e<span class="red-text">{U+0301}</span></span>

    > I would expect (1), (2) and (3) to be rendered identically, and (4) to
    > differ only in the colour of the accent, just as it would be (apart from
    > (1) if U+0301 were replaced by a regular letter. I am assuming nothing
    > special defined in the CSS - the behaviour should be the same with a
    > simple colour attribute. And so I would expect the behaviour of an
    > in-line span element to be subtly different from its normal behaviour
    > when the text starts with a combining mark. I think this is what any
    > naive user would expect in the circumstances, and is also what is sensible.

    Problems are still going to arise if properties other than colour differ
    between the styles "black text" & "red-text". I don't think it is good
    practice to introduce mark-up between a simple character and a combining
    character dependant on it.

    Chris



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Dec 10 2003 - 22:29:30 EST