Re: s-j combination in Unicode?

On 2/14/2013 5:38 AM, Andries Brouwer wrote:
> I asked:
>
> : wondered how to code an s-j overstrike combination
>
> and learn from Karl Pentzlin about n3555.pdf where Michael Everson
> proposes U+1E0A2 LATIN SMALL LETTER ESJ (and many other characters).
> This document is from 2008. What is the status?

 From the document record, it seems that
http://std.dkuug.dk/JTC1/SC2/WG2/docs/n4081.pdf now "replaces" 3555, but
the newer document contains only a subset of the characters.

Doc. 3555 was considered during meeting 53 of ISO/IEC JTC1/SC2/WG2 but
only reached the state were there was request for feedback.

Without digging deeper it appears as if the repertoire that contains the
proposed overstrike was not followed up, while the work concentrated on
Teuthonista.
(See mention of N3555 in
http://std.dkuug.dk/JTC1/SC2/WG2/docs/n3703-AI.pdf)

Therefore to get these letters encoded would require to resubmit the
sections from 3555 that contain them and restart the discussion in UTC
and WG2.

But I'm sure you'll eventually hear from a direct participant.
>
> On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 02:24:12PM -0800, Asmus Freytag wrote:
>> On 2/13/2013 1:59 PM, Andries Brouwer wrote:
>>> [Concerning the g-slash, r-slash, eth-slash symbols,
>>> they can be coded using U+0337 as g̷ r̷ ð̷.
>> Unicode generally does not decompose slashed symbols - so for
>> example, o-slash does not have a decomposition using U+0337. The
>> UTC may not feel bound by this as a precedent, but it would mean
>> that such encoding could definitely be proposed, and probably should
>> be, to get any decision to decompose these explicitly on the record.
> Yes, o-slash is not decomposed, so is different from o followed by U+0337.
> But otherwise: are the characters with names starting with COMBINING
> not intended to be used as combining diacriticals? Wouldn't use such
> as the above be precisely as intended?

Some of the slashes are used, for example, 0338 is used with
mathematical symbols for denoting negation.

It is just that o-slash, the most widely used representative of the
*letters* was never decomposed, so to start now would make the treatment
of letters uneven.
>
> [However, n3555.pdf also contains
> U+1E067 LATIN SMALL LETTER ETH WITH STROKE
> U+1E06E LATIN SMALL LETTER G WITH DIAGONAL STROKE
> U+1E096 LATIN SMALL LETTER R WITH DIAGONAL STROKE
> and, e.g.,
> U+1E0AE LATIN SMALL LETTER NASAL Y
> for y with ogonek. At first sight I do not see the a-ring-ogonek here.
> Does it occur elsewhere?]

You could try to search for it by "constructing" the likely character
name on analogy with existing characters.

A./
>
> Andries
>
Received on Thu Feb 14 2013 - 09:44:32 CST