From: Asmus Freytag (email@example.com)
Date: Sat Mar 31 2007 - 00:33:11 CST
> > the underlying intent is to create a new 'entity' then the requirement
> > is to encode that entity.
> I gotta take issue with that. We can impute that the underlying
> intent was to creat a new entity (the modified macron to indicate
> a modified pronunciation of an English "long" vowel). But that
> doesn't lead directly to a requirement to encode that entity.
> One has to first pass the hurdle of determining whether the
> entity *deserves* encoding via encoded characters, or is
> better treated via markup of some sort, or represents a nonce
> usage that doesn't rise to the level of requiring international
For the purpose of my discussion, the meta aspects of character encoding
in general (worthy of standardization, character not glyph, etc.) are
all assumed to apply in the sense that it is assumed that the question
that is left is the one of deciding the unification issues. Dragging
these other aspects in doesn't help in getting clarity on how to settle
the unification question in such cases. However, nobody suggests that
they can be ignored when actually evaluating a specific proposal for
Having said this, the result of the discussion so far points to a
clarification of a key precedent in deciding the unification question:
combining sequences are not used in Latin/Greek/Cyrillic and
typographically related scripts, if the resulting shape would be fused
(hook, bar, middle tilde, or other connected decoration).
Resolving that this precedent does apply to decorated combining marks is
itself enough to make this discussion useful, even if we were to reject
the specific character later on some other grounds.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Mar 31 2007 - 00:38:28 CST