On 19 Jun 2013, at 07:54, Denis Jacquerye <moyogo_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> Marshallese uses the letters L/l, M/m, N/n, and O/o with cedilla.
>
> The Ad Hoc http://www.unicode.org/L2/L2013/13128-latvian-marshal-adhoc.pdf
> concluded that encoding
> LATIN CAPITAL LETTER MARSHALLESE L WITH CEDILLA
> LATIN SMALL LETTER MARSHALLESE L WITH CEDILLA
> LATIN CAPITAL LETTER MARSHALLESE N WITH CEDILLA
> LATIN SMALL LETTER MARSHALLESE N WITH CEDILLA
> would cause the least architectural disruption and would be the best
> way to proceed.
>
> How can that be the best way?
It treads most lightly on the existing data.
> How would one rationalize using one diacritic U+0327 with M/m and O/o but not with L/l and N/n in Marshallese?
The same way one would rationalize using precomposed ãẽĩñõũỹ (aeinouy with tilde) but a necessarily de-composed g̃ (g with tilde) in Guaraní.
> A single combining diacritic to use with Marshallese L/l, M/m, N/n and O/o would be easier to deal with.
It would introduce yet another confusability problem.
> It would require less new characters to be encoded and would make it easier to support in fonts (adding 1 instead of 4).
No! Because if you added a single new character you'd have to make sure you had good glyph placement with LlMmNnOo which is eight glyphs.
> It would also be easier to implement on keyboard layouts (same behaviour four all Marshallese letters with cedilla instead of 2 different behaviours) .
First off, what does a Marshallese keyboard look like anyway? Second, well, maybe, but I am still convinced that this is the best solution. Keyboards aren't that hard to implement. It's interesting what to do in an internationalized situation. One might implement a keyboard that followed the glyph (cedilla or comma below) rather than the underlying encoding for instance.
Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
Received on Wed Jun 19 2013 - 03:16:32 CDT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Wed Jun 19 2013 - 03:16:33 CDT