I agree with David. I had mentioned this earlier as a possiblity, but
the latest UTC changes in Table 5-3 to use ignorables make it even
more attractive. (Cf
http://www.macchiato.com/utc/grapheme_cluster.html)
The sole change required would be for the CGJ to be Me instead of Mn.
If we made this change, it would provide for a mechanism for
representing diacritics over multiple characters, without the addition
of any other characters -- or the wait for them to be encoded.
Mark
—————
Γνῶθι σαυτόν — Θαλῆς
[For transliteration, see http://oss.software.ibm.com/cgi-bin/icu/tr]
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Hopwood" <david.hopwood@zetnet.co.uk>
To: <unicode@unicode.org>
Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 14:19
Subject: Re: How to make "oo" with combining breve/macron over pair?
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> Rick McGowan wrote:
> >
> > > http://www.bartleby.com/images/pronunciation/oomacr.gif
> > > http://www.bartleby.com/images/pronunciation/oobreve.gif
> >
> > All of this talk with using CGJ, etc, for double diacritics has me
a bit
> > worried. It seems to be becoming rather the latest faddish thing
to find
> > new uses for CGJ.
>
> There is only one use of CGJ: to link characters into a single
grapheme
> cluster, which behaves differently than separate grapheme clusters
for the
> purposes of editing and application of combining marks. The
proposals
> that have been put forward are just minor variations on that.
>
> > In this case, I don't see the point of complicating anything or
adding
> > more rules for CGJ use.
>
> This is less complicated than adding all the double diacritics that
would
> be needed, and also supports functionality needed for mathematics.
Remember
> that enclosing marks already apply to grapheme clusters formed using
CGJ
> in the draft of 3.2; the fact that nonspacing marks can't be used
this way
> is an *exception*, that was only made for normalisation reasons.
>
> > Why not just encode two new double combining marks to go along
with the
> > already known double diacritics at U+0360, U+0361, U+0362...
Whether we
> > like that approach or not from a purist point of view, it makes
more sense
> > to me than adding any complexity to CGJ parsing, etc, etc.
>
> The parsing of my proposal (e.g., allowing <o, CGJ, o, CGJ, breve>)
is no
> more complicated than what is needed anyway to implement the current
text
> of PDUTR#28.
>
> > These are just two more examples of something we already have; and
there
> > are not likely to be thousands of them, perhaps only a few more.
>
> In mathematics, diacritics can extend across an arbitrary number of
> characters, and I count more than 30 that could reasonably be used
in
> that way. A general mechanism is more appropriate.
>
> - --
> David Hopwood <david.hopwood@zetnet.co.uk>
>
> Home page & PGP public key: http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hopwood/
> RSA 2048-bit; fingerprint 71 8E A6 23 0E D3 4C E5 0F 69 8C D4 FA 66
15 01
> Nothing in this message is intended to be legally binding. If I
revoke a
> public key but refuse to specify why, it is because the private key
has been
> seized under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act; see
www.fipr.org/rip
>
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: 2.6.3i
> Charset: noconv
>
> iQEVAwUBPIVENjkCAxeYt5gVAQGOMQf/V8Nrssep98johLEktMJvhwkixQxm9c7A
> fgm8X5EQz47gEf/NHItRxaL5Ch3kTFO1jN2D+m6+uUxcmzh9BfY1kXMVrXB+iw/5
> z65J1SvL16rUlmep2np4DYTEvzO6tuNi4yZTCDO2xZUNWMtGAQvQw91tggJ4BvMT
> JGiwL2FdNY8hzEh5nM2C1XUTqpAKl9gTB9JmvGrzgxuqO0/LjXAR/3Y+Ecr6Tizd
> 9G1GUQaO1EKa2eiEiQFzqVaJH3xvAfKGewII2pGJj9AQwkj0/7bcHbrNeKOyY1fR
> VvaDX47ZjgUJfmMriYiS5zrL2jYef4FMZ2kRHfhku6HdnIQJL7pcGg==
> =0NtN
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Mar 05 2002 - 19:53:22 EST
