From: Cary Karp (email@example.com)
Date: Mon Nov 21 2005 - 01:17:44 CST
Quoting Mark E. Shoulson:
> I'd venture to say that double-vav, vav-yod, and yod-yod ligatures
> should have *canonical* decomposition to their constituent letters! I'm
> sure that would cause problems of some sort, but at least compatibility
> decomposition is necessary.
> Doesn't really matter which is the more frequently entered; we normalize
> strings all the time in Unicode.
Why are they not being normalized here?
I assume that at least part of the answer lies in the fourth Yiddish
digraph 'pasekh tsvey yudn', HEBREW LIGATURE YIDDISH DOUBLE YOD WITH
HEBREW POINT PATAH (U+05F2 U+05B7). Which (I further assume) would
decompose and recompose correctly only if the YIDDISH DOUBLE YOD
ligature were the canonical form. What I don't understand, is why the
entire pointed digraph wasn't represented as a single precombined
character, with it then being possible to decompose the other three
ligatures as Mark suggests.
With apologies for not having been able to locate the answers to the
following questions and thus needing to pose them on this list:
Is there a categorical ban on the assignment of code points to new
characters that can be represented by combining preexisting characters
and, if so, where will I find a citable reference to it?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Nov 21 2005 - 01:21:05 CST