RE: Mark-Driven Script Categorisation

From: Peter Constable <petercon_at_microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 18 May 2012 01:07:58 +0000

Whatever Emacs or other implementations use, I'd consider 00D7 a better choice than 0078 for a generic base placeholder on which to display non-Latin (or any) combining marks.

Peter

-----Original Message-----
From: unicode-bounce_at_unicode.org [mailto:unicode-bounce_at_unicode.org] On Behalf Of Richard Wordingham
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2012 1:00 PM
To: verdy_p_at_wanadoo.fr
Cc: unicode_at_unicode.org
Subject: Re: Mark-Driven Script Categorisation

On Thu, 17 May 2012 20:41:19 +0200
Philippe Verdy <verdy_p_at_wanadoo.fr> wrote:

> Is it really the Latin letter x in question there, if it's use is to
> be a visible placeholder to hold diacritic vowel marks ? The Latin
> letter has the problem of is dual case (not found in the Lao script,
> and a too large variation across many font styles, when the
> multiplication sign would probably fit better for its use as a
> placeholder.

You're the only other person I've met who thinks that it is
U+00D7 MULTIPLICATION SIGN, but the evidence is against us. Emacs,
Ununtu and Windows all reckon that the Lao keyboard has 'x'.

Richard.
Received on Thu May 17 2012 - 20:11:40 CDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Thu May 17 2012 - 20:11:41 CDT