Figge, Donald scripsit:
> Because these two characters are unified, the composition software needs to
> be smart enough to know that a word can be divided between two vowels when
> one of them has a diaeresis mark, but not necessarily if the same mark is
> intended to serve as an umlaut.
Very true. Composition is inherently language-specific (such a
fundamental point as mapping a "fi" sequence to the corresponding
ligature must be suppressed for Turkish and, IIRC, Portuguese),
so a universal encoding can give little help with it.
> The argument that alphabetic characters are pronounced differently in
> various languages but still have the same code point misses the point of my
> original question which is why unification when the umlaut and diaeresis
> have different basic functionalities.
My point was that diacritics hav different "basic functionalities"
anyway, and are set up on a shape basis because that avoids over-fine
-- John Cowan email@example.com e'osai ko sarji la lojban.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:47 EDT