From: Richard Wordingham (richard.wordingham@ntlworld.com)
Date: Mon Jun 12 2006 - 22:17:42 CDT
Karl Pentzlin from Tuesday, June 13, 2006 on 12:30 AM
> As the two letters of each pair have the same size, combinations of
> base letters and combining letters above are not appropriate.
>
> If you had to propose these letters for Unicode, would you
> a.) propose a "stacking joiner",
FWIW (a) is my preference. I appreciate that stacking letters are easier
for layout, but Unicode is already littered with precombined Latin
characters because they were easier for layout. This stacking joiner would
be applicable to at least the Latin and Devanagari scripts. Possibly we
need a 'small stacking joiner', but we are already acquiring disorderly
stacked reduced clones. So that's 4 stackers:
stacking joiner above
stacking joiner above with reduction
stacking joiner below (example?)
stacking joiner below with reduction.
Now, where do the diacritics go? On the combination, Indic style, or on the
immmediately preceding base character? I suppose there's the ghastly
possibility of having to distinguish, the interpretation of <a, stacking
joiner above with reduction, r> plus combining acute accent on the whole
from <a, stacking joiner above with reduction, U+0155 SMALL LETTER R WITH
ACUTE>. Unicode avoids bracketing, and sometimes the lack is very
incovenient.
I suppose we're going to have invent the concept of **unstable**
'semi-canonical' equivalence to deal with combining characters that already
exist.
Richard.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jun 12 2006 - 22:25:02 CDT