RE: Question on Canonical equivilance

From: Peter Constable (
Date: Wed Nov 24 2004 - 12:23:11 CST

  • Next message: Kenneth Whistler: "RE: Question on Canonical equivilance"

    > From: []
    On Behalf
    > Of Tim Greenwood

    > All of the spacing combining marks (general category Mc) except
    > musical symbols have a canonical combining class of 0. So, for example
    > 0B95 (TAMIL LETTER KA) 0BC7 (TAMIL VOWEL SIGN EE - stands to the left
    > of the consonant) 0BBE (TAMIL VOWEL SIGN AA - on the right) is
    > canonically distinct from 0B95 0BBE 0BC7 - even though I presume that
    > they would generate an identical glyph. Why is this? The Canonical
    > Combining Class Values in UCD.html has entries and values for left
    > attached and right attached - but no characters have these values.

    The question that comes to my mind isn't why some Mc marks don't have
    non-zero classes Right Attached class, but rather why any Mc marks *do*
    have non-zero classes.

    There are 352 marks with a canonical combining class > 0. Only 8 of
    these, all musical symbols, are Mc.

    Peter Constable

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Nov 24 2004 - 12:24:34 CST