On 3/5/2012 11:44 AM, Philippe Verdy wrote:
> So what do you propose ?
It doesn't matter what *Michael* proposes at this point. These have already
been approved by both the UTC and WG2 and are currently in DAM ballot.
> - Encoding the new precomposed pairs as a new combining character
> (there may be a lot of candidate pairs to encode, espacially in the
> Latin script),
Yes. Although this isn't a "precomposed pair", by definition. It is a
letter with
a diacritic of some sort (any sort), which itself is then used as a
combining mark
above.
> - or encoding a variation of the existing diacritic to mean that they
> are bound to a first-level of diacritic (here a combining letter),
No. That would be a fundamental architectural change to the standard.
Ain't gonna happen.
> - or duplicating the encoding of the diacritics without using varation
> selectors ?
No.
> - or using an upper layer protocol ?
No.
By the way, Philippe, this horse is already long out of the barn. See U+1DD7
COMBINING LATIN SMALL LETTER C WITH CEDILLA, which is already a
published part of the standard.
Focusing just on the three new characters with umlauts (or diaereses --
makes
no matter, you can use for either, just like the non-combining versions)
-- seems
to make this a matter of what happens when you have a combining letter above
which has its own diacritic above, but in fact this is a much more
general problem,
because the diacritics on the combining letter above could be below (see
the C WITH CEDILLA cited above) or otherwise, just as well. See 1DEC, which
has a diacritic set of bars *across* the letter form, and 1DED and 1DF0,
which have
a diacritic mark at the bottom left of the letter forms.
--Ken
Received on Mon Mar 05 2012 - 14:20:03 CST
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 05 2012 - 14:20:04 CST