Re: Latvian and Marshallese Ad Hoc Report (cedilla and comma below)

Do you mean that these characters will be encoded without permitting
canonnical decompositions (because it would violate the equivalences with
Latvian/Livonian) ?

If so, what you want is just to explicitly say that these cedillas for
Marshallese (or other uses) should be attached and not rendered with a
comma below (current practices). Note that we've also have cases were the
cedilla is shown as a comma above right...

Why using the term MARSHALLESE then ? shouldn't it be enough to name them:

LATIN CAPITAL LETTER L WITH CEDILLA ATTACHED BELOW
LATIN SMALL LETTER L WITH CEDILLA ATTACHED BELOW
LATIN CAPITAL LETTER N WITH CEDILLA ATTACHED BELOW
LATIN SMALL LETTER N WITH CEDILLA ATTACHED BELOW

This exhibits something interesting : what you want to encode is in fact an
explicit variant form for the cedilla (for use in Marshallese), but not for
the base letter itself. But then Latvian/Levonian users will also want to
have their own variants encoded as well.

Can't we imagine :
- the encoding of a new non ambiguous cedilla (i.e. COMBINING CEDILLA
ATTACHED BELOW) ?
- or the encoding with an existing variant selector ? before or after the
cedilla ?
(these two alternatives was not proposed in the five strategies analysed).

2013/6/19 Denis Jacquerye <moyogo_at_gmail.com>

> Marshallese uses the letters L/l, M/m, N/n, and O/o with cedilla.
>
> The Ad Hoc http://www.unicode.org/L2/L2013/13128-latvian-marshal-adhoc.pdf
> concluded that encoding
> LATIN CAPITAL LETTER MARSHALLESE L WITH CEDILLA
> LATIN SMALL LETTER MARSHALLESE L WITH CEDILLA
> LATIN CAPITAL LETTER MARSHALLESE N WITH CEDILLA
> LATIN SMALL LETTER MARSHALLESE N WITH CEDILLA
> would cause the least architectural disruption and would be the best
> way to proceed.
>
> How can that be the best way?
> How would one rationalize using one diacritic U+0327 with M/m and O/o
> but not with L/l and N/n in Marshallese?
> A single combining diacritic to use with Marshallese L/l, M/m, N/n and
> O/o would be easier to deal with.
> It would require less new characters to be encoded and would make it
> easier to support in fonts (adding 1 instead of 4).
> It would also be easier to implement on keyboard layouts (same
> behaviour four all Marshallese letters with cedilla instead of 2
> different behaviours) .
>
> --
> Denis Moyogo Jacquerye
> African Network for Localisation http://www.africanlocalisation.net/
> Nkótá ya Kongó míbalé --- http://info-langues-congo.1sd.org/
> DejaVu fonts --- http://www.dejavu-fonts.org/
>
>
>
Received on Wed Jun 19 2013 - 03:31:37 CDT