From: Peter Constable (petercon@microsoft.com)
Date: Sun Apr 03 2005 - 22:54:03 CST
> From: unicore-bounce@unicode.org [mailto:unicore-bounce@unicode.org]
On
> Behalf Of Patrick Andries
> >> I
> >> see no argument *for* encoding a combining implosive mark.
> >
> There could be one if unknown (to us as yet) implosive sindhi
characters
> may be discovered later. It is not sufficient to say < for
simplicity's
> sake > I have encoded 4 characters rather than a single mark, it is
> worthwhile analysing other alternatives and show why they are unlikely
> to help (only one extra implosive possible according to IPA notations)
> and why there are more complicated (usually 1 is simpler than 4 but
> maybe not here).
Since we do know that there are *not* any more as-yet-unknown implosive
Sindhi characters waiting to discovered, this is not something we need
to concern ourselves with. IMO, Michael's proposal document has all
that's needed. In this case, simplicity *is* sufficient, because a
combining mark would involve a significant reduction in simplicity of
implementation for no real benefit.
Peter Constable
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Apr 03 2005 - 22:54:52 CST