Re: Questions about diacritics

From: Philippe Verdy (
Date: Fri Sep 17 2004 - 10:22:55 CDT

  • Next message: Peter Kirk: "Re: Value of U+1E20"

    From: "Doug Ewell" <>
    > In the case of INVISIBLE LETTER, it seems likely -- based on the
    > comments of experts -- that the benefits outweigh the disadvantages.
    > But new control characters (and quasi-controls like IL) have tended to
    > cause more problems and confusion for Unicode in the past than new
    > graphically visible characters. The possibility of misuse has to be
    > evaluated, and the rules do have to be stated clearly. Combinations
    > involving IL plus SPACING ACCENT, or IL plus ZW(N)J, or whatever, should
    > be part of the rules; what effect should such combinations have, and are
    > they discouraged? For IL, that is probably good enough.

    The most important misuse of IL could be avoided by saying in the standard
    that a renderer should make this character visible if it is not followed by
    a combining character that it expects. This would avoid possible spoofing by
    including it within some critical texts such as people and company names in
    signatures. A candidate rendering would be the dotted circle and square as
    seen in the proposal, or a dotted square with "IL" letters inside. This
    glyph would appear even if "visible controls" editing mode is not enabled.

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Sep 17 2004 - 10:24:51 CDT