From: Philippe Verdy (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Fri Aug 08 2003 - 19:37:25 EDT
On Saturday, August 09, 2003 12:49 AM, Michael Everson <email@example.com> wrote:
> At 14:22 -0700 2003-08-08, Kenneth Whistler wrote:
> > Philippe, you are tilting at windmills, here. There is no chance
> > that the UTC is going to consider such a character, in my
> > assessment, let alone give it the properties you suggest.
> Nor WG2 either.
Why that? Because I suggest something that some other may think
as useful to fill a large gap in Unicode for spcing diacritics, but I'm
not trusted enough due to my errors or confusions here, so that this
suggestion would be endorsed by more "serious" UTC or WG2
I admit that the properties of such character can be discussed, and
is possibly not necessarily a "Sk" symbol, but a "Lo" letter, in which
case the name "INVISIBLE LETTER" may be appropriate (where
it could also fill the gap for Hebrew "Yerushala(y)im", but this is a
possibly distinct function for a missing letter in phonology).
Why do you think it is stupid to have a single carrier character that
would avoid adding new spacing diacritics, when the standard
combining diacritics could be used without less "quirks" like
"defective" sequences just to produce the desired effect?
If you think that spacing diacritics are stupid, why then are they
given these properties and not deprecated (no more recommanded)
in the standard, in favor of the SPACE+diacritics sequences, which
are really not equivalent to spacing diacritics used as symbols
(sometimes described also as "MODIFIER LETTER" which is
very misleading according to their gc=Sk property) and as base
characters (to which other diacritics can be applied) ?
-- Philippe. Spams non tolérés: tout message non sollicité sera rapporté à vos fournisseurs de services Internet.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Aug 08 2003 - 20:06:06 EDT