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

This will also happen with the new confusable introduced by a new separate
and undecomposable letter... I don't see where your point is.
Already Marshellese documents are encoded using the existing cedilla, even
if you don't like it, and it still works correctly for most users, even if
the cedila looks like a comma below, because there's no contrasting pair
where the confusion is possible.

I would militate for the statu quo. Because these 4 characters are not
really needed for Marshallese. But we should still be able to use a variant
selector if one wants to make visual distinctions (it will not affect
searches and collations. Note that all Unicode-encoded characters clusters
may also be followed by an addition CGJ, in all scripts. All these are also
creating confusables on a very vast repertoire of clusters and in all
scripts, so using a CGJ or variant selector (only to fix the grlyph
presenation) won't change things radically.

2013/6/21 "Jörg Knappen" <jknappen_at_web.de>

> Dominikus Dittes Scherkl schrieb:
>
> >Why not instead encoding a new combining "MARSHALLESE CEDILLA"
> >that ought to be used with g, k, l, m, r and their uppercase counterparts?
>
> This is not a good idea, because the combining "MARSHALLESE CEDILLA" can
> be combined with the letter C, too.
> This creates all kind of havoc with the Ç (including fake
> internationalised domain names). The remaining letters
> with cedilla need to be precomposed and non-decomposable.
>
> --Jörg Knappen
>
>
>
Received on Fri Jun 21 2013 - 10:26:31 CDT