> What is wrong with this list? Why did Unicode choose spacing marks for
> Bopomofo tones in the Big-5 table?
Frank Tang suggested that this was an issue of combining versus non-combining
marks for the mapping to Asian character sets, and I believe he is correct.
Just as the accent marks in 8859-1 are mapped to the *spacing* forms in
Unicode, rather than to the combining marks, so the mapping for legacy
Asian character sets is to *spacing* forms, rather than to combining marks.
Since the legacy Asian character sets in question (in this case Big 5) did
not have combining marks, the mappings were created accordingly. (In some
instances these legacy mapping issues were the original *reason* for having
both a combining and a non-combining form of some accent characters.)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:58 EDT