Re: markup on combining characters

From: Peter Kirk (
Date: Wed Sep 08 2004 - 03:56:21 CDT

  • Next message: "Public Review Issue: UAX #24 Proposed Update"

    On 08/09/2004 04:43, Jony Rosenne wrote:

    >>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.
    >No, it is more like <forecolor:black, combiningcolor:red> "e" "acute"
    OK, what about "", ZWJ, "<red>", IBC, acute, "</red>" and/or its
    canonical equivalent "c", cedilla, ZWJ, "<red>", IBC, acute, "</red>"?
    It is clear from this version that the acute should be red but not the
    cedilla. But your alternative gives no way of colouring one combining
    mark but not the other one.

    This is not a trivial issue, but a real one especially in Hebrew, where
    one might want to colour or otherwise mark up some combining marks but
    not others, e.g. accents but not points, or vice versa. For another
    example, if dagesh hazaq and/or sheva na are to be distinguished by
    markup, how would we distinguish <bet, "<marked>", sheva, "</marked>",
    dagesh> i.e. bet with ordinary dagesh and sheva na, from <bet, sheva,
    "<marked>", dagesh, "</marked>">, i.e. bet with dagesh hazaq and
    ordinary sheva? And we may have the problem that the markup interferes
    with the canonical reordering of this sequence between the canonical
    order (as given) and the logical order (which any Hebrew user would
    type) - which is one good reason to avoid separate markup of combining
    marks. This is why I am arguing for this particular problem with Hebrew
    to be solved with separate characters, not with markup.

    Peter Kirk (personal) (work)

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 08 2004 - 03:57:50 CDT