From: Peter_Constable@sil.org
Date: Thu Jul 24 2003 - 15:10:54 EDT
John Hudson wrote on 07/24/2003 12:49:11 PM:
> * Of course, this gets screwed up by Unicode normalisation, but that's
just
> another example of what we've been talking about all along. Personally, I
> would rather see a 'right meteg' character encoded than use CGJ or
another
> mechanism to force right positioning.
Of course, one of the nasty details in all these suggestions is that, if we
do start using CGJ in the way suggested and also get a new character RIGHT
METEG (for which we need to dream up an appropriate combining class -- pick
a number from 1 to 199!), then we need to consider what the significance
(if any) will be of the distinctions between (e.g.)
QAMETS + RIGHT METEG
QAMETS + CGJ + RIGHT METEG
RIGHT METEG + QAMETS
RIGHT METEG + CGJ + QAMETS
Of course, we'll probably just disregard RIGHT METEG + (CGJ + ) QAMETS +
(CGJ + ) METEG and variations thereof as just sequences with no linguistic
meaning (i.e. misspellings).
- Peter
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Constable
Non-Roman Script Initiative, SIL International
7500 W. Camp Wisdom Rd., Dallas, TX 75236, USA
Tel: +1 972 708 7485
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jul 24 2003 - 15:48:30 EDT