From: Karljürgen Feuerherm (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Fri Jun 27 2003 - 09:37:43 EDT
(Regret I hadn't yet read this post prior to my last post)
Peter said, in reponse to Ken:
> Why is it a kludge to insert some cc=0 control character into the text for
> the sole purpose of preventing reordering during canonical ordering of two
> combining marks that do interact typographically and so should but
> nevertheless do not have the same combining class; and, moreover, to do so
> using a control character that was not created for that purpose?
> The answer seems so obvious, I wouldn't know how to begin responding.
> And the fact that it achieves some desired effect has no bearing on being
> described as a kludge -- every kludge achieves some desired effect. If it
> were otherwise, the given practice would never have been conceived.
Exactly correct. I am surprised Ken posed the question.
> If we want to insert a control character to prevent reordering under
> canonical ordering, I think it would be preferable to create a new control
> character for just that purpose: that would give a character that could be
> used elsewhere for the very same purpose without needing to worry about
> what unanticipated and undesirable effects might result by hijacking a
> control created for some completely unrelated purpose. For instance, you
> suggested RLM. Suppose next week we discover a very similar issue in a LTR
> script; do we want to insert RLM to prevent mark reordering in that case?
Very fine cases in point of what I was trying to say in more general terms.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jun 27 2003 - 10:22:27 EDT