From: Mark E. Shoulson (email@example.com)
Date: Tue Feb 02 2010 - 18:41:57 CST
On 02/02/2010 01:49 PM, spir wrote:
> Also, these definitions seem to imply that a combining sequence cannot be originally defined with the base following a combining mark, eg that a source text holding<U+0307 combining dot above, U+0064 latin small letter d> is simply illegal. Is this true? If yes, a sequence of 2 codes can only be properly ordered and we can safely start reordering from the *third* code.
COMBINING DOT ABOVE followed by LATIN SMALL LETTER D would not be a
valid sequence, correct, but you should start working from the d, not
the code that follows. After all, the "d" by itself *IS* a valid
sequence, whether or not a combining character comes after it. It's the
orphaned combining dot that is defective.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Feb 02 2010 - 18:45:41 CST