From: Kenneth Whistler (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue Aug 25 2009 - 14:53:51 CDT
> The third approach would leave the actual assignments in
> place, but achieves the same effect by a highly visible effort to
> document the improved understanding of what it means
> for a character to have classification Mc.
> Unlike the first option, this would not be a case-by-case
> annotation of a few problematic characters in diverse
> script chapters, but would have to be more up-front.
And I would second this third approach. ;-)
It would be very useful to have a written explanation of
the behavior of visarga and ardhavisarga to help guide
rendering implementations. Note that there are many
many extensions for Vedic added in Unicode 5.2, and
the addition of the ardhavisarga is not the only character
which implementations will need new information about
in order to get best display behavior -- but it is
a good place to start.
Shriramana Sharma's discussion which started this thread,
shorn of assumptions about what "should" or "should not"
be a combining mark, and instead focussing on the actual
display behavior required, could seed such a written
explanation. It could start existence as a FAQ (or
set of FAQ entries) or a UTN -- and if it proves helpful,
then be reworked to incorporate it as appropriate in
the relevant sections of the standard, if the UTC approves
heading in that direction.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Aug 25 2009 - 14:57:56 CDT