On 19 Jun 2013, at 09:04, Denis Jacquerye <moyogo_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> Furthermore, the cedilla can also have a proper cedilla form as opposed to the Latvian or Livonian comma below form in transliteration systems.
This has nothing to do with the Marshallese/Latvian conflict, though.
> ALA-LC romanizations use cedilla with r as they do under c or s.
Does ŗ contrast with r̦ in ALA-LC romanization?
> BGN/PCGN and UNGEGN romanizations use cedilla with d as they do under h, s, t or z.
> DIN 1460-2 uses the cedilla under d, k, l, n as it does under c, h, s, t and z.
If those things are a problem, then solving this problem for Marshallese simply does nothing about that problem. But it solves the problem for Marshallese.
> If the 4 Marshallese cedilla characters are encoded as single characters, does this mean the d, k, l, r with proper cedilla in those romanizations would also have to be encoded as single characters?
No; it doesn't have any implications for that data.
> Encoding 1 combining diacritic character is more efficient than encoding 12 characters.
Do you think that encoding one new COMBINING MARSHALLESE CEDILLA will not cause problems both with existing COMBINING COMMA BELOW and COMBINING CEDILLA?
Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
Received on Wed Jun 19 2013 - 03:52:06 CDT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Wed Jun 19 2013 - 03:52:06 CDT