From: Jukka K. Korpela (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sun Nov 16 2008 - 02:53:15 CST
Asmus Freytag wrote:
> If there's a need for an explanation as to the "why", here's a
> generic one:
The explanation does not refer to diacritic marks, precomposed marks, or
actually any characters (except by the use of the word "Unicode").
I think it is so generic that it could be presented in defence of any
feature, real or imaginary, in Unicode. Actually, replacing the word
"Unicode" by some other word X, it would be a defence of feature, real or
imaginary, in X.
I don't think it is useful to give too abstract explanations when people ask
a specific question.
Here's a short version of an explanation that actually explains something
(though not much and perhaps not quite correctly):
The Unicode approach to diacritic marks is to encode them as combining
marks. Unicode contains a lot of precomposed characters for compatibility
with older standards, but there is no comparable need for adding new
-- Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Nov 16 2008 - 02:56:01 CST