And, of course, combining marks are needed for mathematics.
Precomposition for all such mathematical symbols would number in the
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Fieber [SMTP:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 1997 7:23 AM
> To: Multiple Recipients of
> Subject: Re: missing glyph `dotlessj'
> On Tue, 16 Sep 1997, Kenneth Whistler wrote:
> > I must emphatically second Mark Leisher's comment on this
> > exchange.
> > *The combining accents are not a mistake.*
> > They are in Unicode by design, are implemented now in many
> > vendors' software, and are not going away.
> And they are essential for dealing with some odd situations for
> which allocating pre-composed characters would simply be silly.
> For instance, my wife is working with a bunch of Navajo
> materials, many which were produced before linguists and
> anthropologists came to any sort of agreement on a way to write
> Navajo. In this early stuff, there are all sorts of bizarre
> diacritics which can be handled nicely by composition. Would a
> pre-composed character be warranted just because one or two
> anthropologists used them in one or two books? I doubt it.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:36 EDT