Thanks for so detailed explanation.
3 more problems:
1. Can anyone kindly explain why COMBINING DOT ABOVE RIGHT was turned down?
> A new character, COMBINING DOT ABOVE RIGHT, should *NOT* be encoded.
> It was already proposed two years ago, and has been considered and
> turned down in the context of the issues raised by Kiatgak.
I am still out of touch with Te Khaisu.
Why COMBINING DOT ABOVE RIGHT was turned down? Is there anyone understanding
the real reason?
Was it rejected with other precomposed characters together?
Or as Abdul said: "...'combining dot above' has a similar appearance and
probably the same function as the proposed 'combing dot right above' ... was
basis of the rejection."?
Intuitively, the appearances of DOT ABOVE and DOT ABOVE RIGHT are quite
different (at least for me), arn't they?
In other words, their semantics should be different in "representative
glyphs", shouldn't they?
The proposal on 1997/6/22 also said: "...in no publication has COMBINING DOT
ABOVE appeared in the place of COMBINING RIGHT DOT ABOVE. Therefore it is
inappropriate to view the proposed character COMBINING RIGHT DOT ABOVE as a
presentation form of COMBINING DOT ABOVE."
2. If using O/o + U+0307(COMBINING DOT ABOVE) to represent "O/o with dot
above right", how to make them have the desired appearance?
> I am glad to see that the "O with northeast dot" is considered just a
> glyph variant of "O with north dot" (U+022E and U+022F) and therefore
> can be encoded with normal Unicode techniques. That is much better
> than hearing "oh, you have to use the Such-and-So font technology by
> MumbleCorp" or "just use my favorite markup language."
> though it does depend upon font developers supporting a
> language-specific behaviour
It is very nice to have normal Unicode encoding. But we hope the position of
the dot should be to the right above. How?
In normal environments, it will be displayed on the above, won't it?
So, the best way seems to request font developers to support a
language-specific behavior. But
a) to get the help from font developers seems very unlikely (because this
is not a general solution as adding a COMBINING DOT ABOVE RIGHT, just like
b) for the lesser-used languages including Taiwanese etc., there are even
no language codes for them.
Maybe the final result is either we have to tolerant the dot on the above
position or we have to create our own fonts?
If we have to create our own fonts, what are the criteria in order to
conform to Unicode standard? (Available fonts currently are all defined by
their own special codes.)
3. Does "Bopomofo Extended" (U+31A0~U+31B7) violate the principle:
characters should be used?
These symbols almost never used since they were invented by some scholars.
Most people use the latin based Taiwanese, and most data are written in
latin based Taiwanese.
Why can "Bopomofo Extended" be accepted by Unicode Standard? It seems not
very reasonable. It seems also unfair to those lesser-used languages whose
symbols are not defined by government organizations, doesn't it?
PC home 免費電子信箱，申請請至: http://www.pchome.com.tw
會 員 第 一 ， 台 灣 最 大 的 入 口 網 站
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:21:07 EDT