From: Philippe Verdy (email@example.com)
Date: Sun Jul 15 2007 - 23:49:21 CDT
James Kass wrote:
> (Plus signs which already have diacritics [⨢⨣⨤⨥⨦] should probably be
> excluded from consideration.)
Why that ? The intent is to allow documents to specify a notation for those diacritics, and it does not matter of they use a symbol that already has a diacritic encoded with it.
If we argue that easily confusable are not to be considered, then look at the horizontal dash that is also easily confusable with the tatweel.
Then consider other symbols that are composed with a minus sign in them.
It's not up to to Unicode to decide which symbols are wrong, but just to document which symbols are expected to be used as a base for diacritics, including:
* complex combining characters (so reordering them or the multiple glyphs that may compose the c.c. should still be possible), or
* the diacritics of right-to-left scripts (with the otherwise unexpected feature that these diacritics will be drawn with symbols that should probably be neutral for the directionality, and still remain neutral even if diacritics are applied to them); note that the Arabic tatweel may not need to be listed (given that it already is encoded and documented with diacritics and remains a right-to-left character), and has its own joining features with other surrounding Arabic letters.
By default, the listed symbols, used for such notation should have no joining behaviour, even if do not break a word in which they could be used (for example to denote an undecipherable letter), and that's why Ithinkthey should be common symbols with neutral directionality. This will make them the most general if possible, for use with any diacritics of any script.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Jul 15 2007 - 23:55:02 CDT