Aw: Re: Latvian and Marshallese Ad Hoc Report (cedilla and comma below)

From: Jörg Knappen <>
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2013 10:09:08 +0200 (CEST)

Micheal Everson schrieb:

>> My opinion on the cedilla mess is the following:
>> * Add preemptively LATIN [CAPITAL|LOWERCASE] LETTER * WITH CEDILLA ATTACHED for every Latvian/Livonian character currently in UNicode.

> Why? Latvian and Livonian don't use letters with "proper" cedilla attached.

Maybe my english wasn't perfect here; of course I think that for writing Latvian the existing characters shall be used. I meant "for" in the sense of "foreach" or "for loop" in programming languages. And yes, I think not only the four character required for marshallese, but also the other ones (g, k, and r).

>> (Don't use terms like MARSHALLESE [CAPITAL|LOWERCASE] LETTER [M|N] -- such entities don't exist from a character encoding point of view.)

>Yes they do. Cf. U+0406 CYRILLIC CAPITAL LETTER BYELORUSSIAN-UKRAINIAN I. The character name exists to distinguish it from other characters and to guide the user in the character's use.

But that character exists as a base letter with a distinct shape. There is no distinct base letter marshallese m or n.

>> * Declare the list of exceptions to Cedilla rendering officially closed. Whenever another such thing (say, LATIN CAPITAL LETTER P WITH COMMA BELOW / LATIN LOWERCASE LETTER P WITH TURNED COMMA ABOVE) occurs in real life, it will be encoded ... WITH COMMA BELOW.

> I think that is understood, but where would you "declare" this?

In the explanatory notes in the introduction to the standard. I don't have the book here to suggest a more exact location in the moment.

--Jörg Knappen

>Michael Everson *

Received on Fri Jun 21 2013 - 03:11:29 CDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Fri Jun 21 2013 - 03:11:33 CDT