From: Philippe Verdy (email@example.com)
Date: Wed Jun 25 2003 - 13:41:26 EDT
On Wednesday, June 25, 2003 6:13 PM, Mark Davis <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> "Michael Everson" wrote:
> > <Peter_Constable@sil.org> wrote:
> > > Christopher John Fynn wrote:
> > > > Any suggestions as to how to create a standardized work around
> > > > for these incorrect values?
> > >
> > > Propose new characters, and deprecate the old ones?
> > Fix the bloody errors, for heaven's sake.
> Michael, that is like saying "move the bloody character" or "remove
> the bloody character".
If there are real distinct semantics that were "abusively" unified by the canonicalization, the only safe way would be to create a second character that would have another combining class than the existing one, to be used when lexical distinction from the most common use is necessary.
So the added character for the modified vowel signs would have the same representative glyph, but would have the additional semantic "contraction" (clearly indicated in their name). This does not break the existing encoding of most texts, but allows a specific usage for contractions where the existing canonical equivalences would be inappropriate.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jun 25 2003 - 14:41:02 EDT