RE: Merging combining classes, was: New contribution N2676

From: Kent Karlsson (
Date: Wed Oct 29 2003 - 06:04:27 CST

> << A similar situation can be seen in the Latvian letter U+0123 LATIN
> SMALL LETTER G WITH CEDILLA. In good Latvian typography, this
> character
> is always shown with a rotated comma over the g, rather than
> a cedilla
> below the g, because of the typographical design and layout issues
> resulting from trying to place a cedilla below the descender
> loop of the
> g. Poor Latvian fonts may substitute an acute accent for the rotated
> comma, and handwritten or other printed forms may actually show the
> cedilla below the g. >>

The Latvian "cedillas" are really commas below, and are best encoded so.
Still for lowercase g (not for uppercase) the comma below is _rendered_
as a turned comma above.

> Later at 7.7:
> << U+0326 COMBINING COMMA BELOW is sometimes rendered as U+0326
> COMBINING COMMA BELOW is sometimes rendered as U+0312
> COMMA ABOVE on a lowercase "g" to avoid conflict with the
> descender. >>
> So we have two cases noted where characters with combining class 202
> (Below attached) can by Unicode specifications be rendered as if they
> belonged to combining class 214 (Above attached).

COMBINING COMMA BELOW is not "attached", even though cedilla is.
A turned comma above is not _attached_ above...

Maybe an informative table is in order, giving which below diacritics
may, or should, be rendered (turned) above, and for which base
characters (latin/(greek/cyrillic?) small letters with descender?). I
there are other informative typographic tables in the standard, e.g.
giving some Devanagari conjuncts.

        /kent k

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jan 18 2007 - 15:54:25 CST