Re: Punctuation character (inverted interrobang) proposed

From: Denis Jacquerye (
Date: Wed Oct 19 2005 - 22:41:24 CST

  • Next message: Philippe Verdy: "Re: Punctuation character (inverted interrobang) proposed"

    On 10/20/05, Christopher Fynn <> wrote:
    > Denis Jacquerye wrote:
    > > When I was questioning if U+0254, 025C, 0186 and U+0190 could be
    > > precomposed with acute, grave, circumflex or caron a few month ago on
    > > Unicode-Afrique. People notorious on this list replied it would simply
    > > be impossible, because of the proposal guidelines.
    > >>From the proposal guidelines :
    > > Often a proposed character can be expressed as a sequence of one or
    > > more existing Unicode characters. Encoding the proposed character
    > > would be a duplicate representation, and is thus not suitable for
    > > encoding.
    > >
    > > Isn't inverted interrobang simply the sequence U+00BF + U+00A1 ?
    > Denis
    > Not exactly. A difference is that acute, grave, circumflex and caron
    > accents are available as combining characters (U+0301, U+0300, U+0302 &
    > U+030C). Neither U+00BF nor U+00A1 are combining characters - so I think
    > you'd at least have to do something like inserting a zero-width-joiner
    > U+200D character between the two if you wanted to encode or represent an
    > "inverted interrobang" as a sequence of existing Unicode characters.

    Is that sequence you describe impossible to do? Many languages have
    more the one character considered as one letter of their alphabet.
    Spanish used to, or still does in traditional mode, with "ll", "ch"
    and many other languages do too, like many African languages with
    "gb", "nk" and the likes.Of course they can all be formed with a
    zero-width-joiner U+200D, you just need an IME to do it. If inverted
    interrobang is included, why can't those be?

    > Then, in order to have that sequence display as you want, you'd have to
    > persuade font designers to handle this sequence of characters by having
    > their fonts display it as an inverted interrobang glyph.

    Don't we all have to convince font designers to include our glyphs?
    "Unicode encodes characters, not glyphs."

    Denis Moyogo Jacquerye ---

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Oct 19 2005 - 22:42:14 CST