From: Peter Kirk (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue Sep 07 2004 - 18:06:41 CDT
On 07/09/2004 23:56, Philippe Verdy wrote:
> From: "Peter Kirk" <email@example.com>
>> By the way, any suggestion of making the QQ distinction with markup
>> is ruled out by the principle recently expounded on the main Unicode
>> list that separate markup cannot be applied to combining characters.
> Isn't this need of allowing separate markup on combining characters
> addressed by the current proposal to encode a invisible base character
> (IBC), so that markup can be applied to a non defective combining
> I understand that this proposed new character would more likely be
> used to allow rendering isolated combining marks, without needing to
> encode their spacing variant, but the sequence <IBC,combining mark>
> (now possibly enclosed in markup) could become a candidate for
> possible ligaturing by preceding it by a ZWJ, or for word-wrap
> exclusion with a leading WJ...
You mean, you would represent a black e with a red acute accent as
something like "e", ZWJ, "<red>", IBC, acute, "</red>"? That looks like
a nightmare for all kinds of processing and a nightmare for rendering.
The proposed INVISIBLE LETTER is supposed to be a *spacing* character
which can carry a combining mark. The idea of making it non-spacing by
joining with ZWJ to some other character horrifies me. I can see an
argument for a separate non-spacing invisible letter, especially as a
base character for spacing combining marks when no extra space is needed
before them, but even that sounds quite horrifying as a way of putting
separate markup on combining marks.
-- Peter Kirk firstname.lastname@example.org (personal) email@example.com (work) http://www.qaya.org/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Sep 07 2004 - 18:07:19 CDT