Re: Complex Combining

From: Peter Kirk (
Date: Fri Nov 28 2003 - 06:41:56 EST

  • Next message: Andrew C. West: "RE: Complex Combining"

    On 28/11/2003 01:57, Andrew C. West wrote:

    > ...
    >These are all specialised cases that are strictly necessary in order to
    >represent the respective scripts. General text formatting such as underlining or
    >arbitrary encirclement of characters (or cartouchement of ideographs which is
    >common in traditional Chinese texts) is considered to be "rich text" and beyond
    >the scope of Unicode. Whenever I read threads like this one (and they resurface
    >with monotonous regularity) I do wonder whether the participants have ever read
    >TUS Section 2.2 "Unicode Design Principles".
    Andrew, I agree with Jill that there is no need to get ad hominem. You
    will see that I anticipated your objection. I listed several cases where
    a combining mark might need to be associated with a group of characters,
    and suggested that some might be dealt with as "rich text". You have
    confirmed what I wrote. Some of my cases have already been encoded in
    Unicode, and in just the way I suggested; others are considered (by the
    UTC, or just by you?) as "rich text". Like Jill, I see some possible
    inconsistency. One point of this discussion is perhaps to determine if
    we ought to try to make things more consistent.

    Peter Kirk (personal) (work)

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 28 2003 - 07:20:32 EST