From: Peter Kirk (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue Feb 03 2004 - 12:17:26 EST
On 03/02/2004 06:00, Bob_Hallissy@sil.org wrote:
> On 03/02/2004 11:22:54 Peter Kirk wrote:
> >It is interesting that SIL has seen the need to include precomposed
> >combinations with U+0321 palatalized hook and U+0322 retroflex hook.
> >Perhaps this is because these diacritics cannot be automatically
> >combined with their base characters.
> Rather, it is because after discussions with various members of UTC it
> seems that the U+0321 and U+0322 were not really intended to be used
> productively. Cf U+01AB which has no decomposition.
> ... Specifically, we have tried not to violate Unicode's encoding
> principles, and believe that most of the characters we have in the PUA
> stand a good chance of being included into Unicode at some point in
> the future when sufficient supporting evidence is available.
Thanks, Bob, for the clarification. (Although Unicode's encoding
principles have been violated in the Hebrew alternatives recommended.) I
have already provided offlist supporting evidence for the use of several
letters with U+0321 style hooks, from a Russian grammar (in English)
dated 2000 - see my posting "Pseudo-IPA characters for Russian" of 20
Jan. Let's see if the UTC agrees to add these characters, or recommends
combinations with U+0321.
-- Peter Kirk email@example.com (personal) firstname.lastname@example.org (work) http://www.qaya.org/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Feb 03 2004 - 13:52:44 EST