> >For example:
> >- having non spacing combining characters after instead of
> >before base character.
> I understood that it's much better to have them after.
I have not yet located why. I can see ways were software can
handle them much easier if they comes before.
> >- not accepting that some glyphs that look like it is a combined
> >character, is not a combined character but instead a character
> >in itself and should have a code value of itself.
> Apart from dotless j I can't think of any examples of this. Swedish ä does
> not differ in any way from French (or indeed Swedish) à, except in the
> minds of Swedes.
Well the Swedish alphabet includes ä but not à. The last is an
"a with an accent above", while ä is a letter in itself.
Just because the glyph looks like an "a with two dots above", it is not.
It is wrong to decompose a character just because its glyph looks
like being composed of an accent and an other character.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:51 EDT