Re: Mark-Driven Script Categorisation

absolutely

------------------------------
Mark <https://plus.google.com/114199149796022210033>
*
*
*— Il meglio è l’inimico del bene —*
**

On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 6:07 PM, Peter Constable <petercon_at_microsoft.com>wrote:

> Whatever Emacs or other implementations use, I'd consider 00D7 a better
> choice than 0078 for a generic base placeholder on which to display
> non-Latin (or any) combining marks.
>
>
> Peter
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: unicode-bounce_at_unicode.org [mailto:unicode-bounce_at_unicode.org] On
> Behalf Of Richard Wordingham
> Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2012 1:00 PM
> To: verdy_p_at_wanadoo.fr
> Cc: unicode_at_unicode.org
> Subject: Re: Mark-Driven Script Categorisation
>
> On Thu, 17 May 2012 20:41:19 +0200
> Philippe Verdy <verdy_p_at_wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>
> > Is it really the Latin letter x in question there, if it's use is to
> > be a visible placeholder to hold diacritic vowel marks ? The Latin
> > letter has the problem of is dual case (not found in the Lao script,
> > and a too large variation across many font styles, when the
> > multiplication sign × would probably fit better for its use as a
> > placeholder.
>
> You're the only other person I've met who thinks that it is
> U+00D7 MULTIPLICATION SIGN, but the evidence is against us. Emacs,
> Ununtu and Windows all reckon that the Lao keyboard has 'x'.
>
> Richard.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Thu May 17 2012 - 20:23:27 CDT