Re: (SC2WG2.609) New contribution N2705

From: Philippe Verdy (
Date: Tue Feb 17 2004 - 17:21:21 EST

  • Next message: Philippe Verdy: "Re: (SC2WG2.609) New contribution N2705"

    From: <>
    > In addition, superscripts and subscripts for palatalization, velarization,
    > aspiration, etc., already exist in the Unicode IPA block. It seems to me that
    > the function of such glyphs is similar to that of a diacritic in that it
    > modifies the meaning of the base glyph.
    > How is the term "plain text" being used here? Is the distinction one between
    > natural language and scientific notation?

    My best response about it would be that "plain-text" does not require to
    restrict to a natural language. After all decimal digits are not in the natural
    language, it's a notational symbol that we do recognize as a needed character
    (same thing for currency symbols, and even for many unspoken punctuations...)

    We don't need to exclude symbols or notations from Unicode, which already
    defines a full "S" category for them (as well as "N" for numeric symbols). So
    why do you seem to suggest that IPA should not be there and considered as

    Remember that even the scripts for natural languages are themselves conventional
    notations. This is just enough to justify that other notations be included in
    plain-text, as long as we can easily determine a distinctive "character"
    identity in the candidate symbol, and a distinctive representative glyph or
    text-control function, without implying necessarily a required layout or

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Feb 17 2004 - 17:56:56 EST