From: Peter Kirk (peter.r.kirk@ntlworld.com)
Date: Sun Aug 10 2003 - 15:17:18 EDT
On 10/08/2003 10:09, Michael Everson wrote:
> At 01:30 +0200 2003-08-10, Philippe Verdy wrote:
>
>> Whateer you think, the SPACE+diacritic is still a hack, and certainly
>> not a canonical equivalent (including for its properties), of the
>> existing spacing diacritics, which also do not fit all usages because
>> they are symbols.
>
>
> It is the formally specified way to represent what you say you want to
> represent. If an implementation doesn't do that nicely enough,
> complain to the implementors. (This has already been suggested to you.)
As has already been clearly pointed out by Philippe, Kent and myself
(and ignored by those opposed to any change), the combination SPACE +
diacritic does not have the required categories, properties and
specification for the function it is supposed to perform. Either these
categories etc need to be adjusted (and I don't expect the general
category of SPACE to be changed!), or some exceptional mechanism needs
to be clearly defined, or, by far the simplest solution, a new base
character can be defined which, when combined with the diacritic, has
the required categories and properties.
-- Peter Kirk peter@qaya.org (personal) peterkirk@qaya.org (work) http://www.qaya.org/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Aug 10 2003 - 15:50:46 EDT