Re: Questions about diacritics

From: Peter Kirk (
Date: Wed Sep 15 2004 - 04:14:59 CDT

  • Next message: Peter Kirk: "Re: Questions about diacritics"

    On 15/09/2004 04:02, Peter Constable wrote:

    > ...
    >IIRC, the scenario of IL *not* followed by a combining mark was not one
    >explicitly discussed by the proposers before preparing their proposal. I
    >would consider it a possibility that the advance width could be in
    >proportion to the width of the combining mark; it might be considered a
    >logical extension of that idea to say that the advance width could
    >reduce to 0 in the event the maximum width of marks combining with the
    >IL were 0 (i.e. there are no visible combining marks), but that was not
    >a specific intent of the proposal.
    The particular case when a reduction to zero width would be especially
    appropriate is when INVISIBLE LETTER is used with a *spacing* combining
    mark, so that this can be displayed in isolation, with no leading space
    i.e. correctly aligned with a margin or column. This is particularly
    necessary in tables of alphabets etc, in which all of the characters in
    a writing system, including those which Unicode has defined as spacing
    combining marks, are displayed in a table. (Yes, correct display of
    tables is outside the scope of plain text, but it is not the job of
    markup to delete extra space which has been generated by Unicode.)

    Peter Kirk (personal) (work)

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 15 2004 - 10:57:21 CDT