From: Anto'nio Martins-Tuva'lkin (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Thu Jun 10 2004 - 21:10:45 CDT
On 2004.06.10, 18:45, Michael Everson <email@example.com> wrote:
>> After a "double" diacritical, any further combining character could
>> take as its base the "pair" of spacing characters "under" the said
>> double diacritical, shouldn't it?
> I tried that in TextEdit, which is pretty smart, and the second
> diacritic didn't centre over the pair, but rather over the 0251. But
> I guess that's the only choice, and it would be a question of making
> a precomposed glyph.
With six combining double characters (U+035D..U+0362) and a zillion
regular combining characters (101 alone in the U+0330 block), of which
a full dozen would be in realist need, we'd need at the very least
6×12=72 precomposed glyphs.
Isn't the Standard explicit about the positioning of a regular
diacritical after a double one?
António MARTINS-Tuválkin | ()|
PT-1XXX-XXX LISBOA Não me invejo de quem tem |
+351 934 821 700 carros, parelhas e montes |
http://www.tuvalkin.web.pt/bandeira/ só me invejo de quem bebe |
http://pagina.de/bandeiras/ a água em todas as fontes |
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jun 10 2004 - 21:50:11 CDT