From: Michael Everson (email@example.com)
Date: Mon Feb 21 2005 - 10:40:19 CST
At 06:08 -0800 2005-02-21, Patrick Andries wrote:
>Similar-looking (non compatibility) diacritics can also have
>different behaviours (for example in their respective stacking
Position and size may also be a factor.
>I see this as a legitimate reason to desunify similar-looking
>diacritics used by different scripts.
There are also other reasons, and your position, that every dot above
is pre-unified with U+0307, well... it differs from my position. My
position is that for any new script, all of its characters should be
considered unique to it unless there is compelling reason *to* unify.
(Yes, this is about N'Ko combining diacritics, where position and
size and interaction with one another are all factors in their having
been proposed for encoding as script-specific diacritics.)
>Otherwise, I guess script-specific diacritics that look and
>behave(*) like generic diacritics may well embody some spoofing
That's not a reason not to encode script-specific diacritics.
-- Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Feb 21 2005 - 10:44:51 CST