From: Doug Ewell (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Wed Apr 06 2011 - 17:19:20 CDT
Leo Broukhis <leob at mailcom dot com> wrote:
>> The question is not whether you can "build up" something that looks
>> like the proposed character, but whether the uptack "is" nothing but
>> a combination of these two.
> In the proposal, C.9 Can any of the proposed characters be encoded
> using a composed character sequence of either
> existing characters or other proposed characters? says "No". I've
> demonstrated that it is not true.
I think C.9 is intended to discourage people from proposing unitary
encoding for obvious sequences like "x with acute," not to encourage
disassembly of diacritics into smaller diacritics.
In some fonts, you can represent U+0077 as <U+0076, U+0076> with really
tight spacing, but that doesn't prove much.
-- Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA | RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14 www.ewellic.org | www.facebook.com/doug.ewell | @DougEwell
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Apr 06 2011 - 17:21:01 CDT