From: jameskass@att.net
Date: Mon May 03 2004 - 07:20:54 CDT
Philippe Verdy wrote,
> From: "D. Starner" <shalesller@writeme.com>
> > Unicode will not allocate any more codes for characters that can be made
> > precomposed, as it would disrupt normalization.
>
> But what about characters that may theorically be composed with combining
> sequences, but almost always fail to be represented successfully?
Likewise.
> If such ligature has a distinct semantic from a ligature created by ligaturing
> separate letters for presentation purpose, the character is not a ligature (the
> AE and OE "ligated glyphs" are distinct abstract characters) .
The "gb" combination mentioned in the original post is considered a letter
in the Yoruba alphabet. It is not a ligature, it is a digraph. Likewise,
in the Spanish alphabet, the "ll" combination is considered a letter. It
is also a digraph. Both of these combinations are already handled by ASCII.
(Note that the AE and OE "ligated glyphs" *are* ligatures.)
> The case of dot below however should be handled in fonts by proper glyph
> positioning and probably not by new assigned codepoints, unless this is only one
> possible presentation form for an actual distinct abstract character that may
> have other forms without this separate diacritic (for example if g with dot
> below was only one presentation for an abstract character that may be also
> renderd with a small gamma)....
Yoruba doesn't use any marks with the letter "g". It does use some diacritics
like acute, grave, and macron to indicate tones. It also uses a mark below
the letters "e", "o", and "s" which alter the pronunciation of those letters.
This is where there remains some controversy. One faction prefers the use
of a vertical line below which should attach to the base letter, and the
other faction prefers to use the dot below.
Best regards,
James Kass
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri May 07 2004 - 18:45:25 CDT