Re: a character for an unknown character

From: Janusz S. Bien <>
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2016 17:44:43 +0100

Quote/Cytat - Michael Everson <> (Wed 21 Dec 2016
05:25:30 PM CET):

> I still believe that we need INVISIBLE LETTER
> I think that for the display of combining characters without a base
> character that the recommended NBSP makes no sense. NBSP is supposed
> to glue the characters on either side of it to itself. It makes
> sense that the following character, say COMBINING ACUTE ACCENT,
> would be glued to it. But why should the two of those be glued to
> whatever precedes?

I strongly support this. In our historical corpus of Polish

we have in particular words ending with 'COMBINING LATIN SMALL LETTER
O' (U+0366).

We had to precede the character with NBSP as the vase, but to preserve
the correct segmentation into words we had to treat NBSP as a letter.

Best regards


Prof. dr hab. Janusz S. Bień -  Uniwersytet Warszawski (Katedra  
Lingwistyki Formalnej)
Prof. Janusz S. Bień - University of Warsaw (Formal Linguistics Department),,
Received on Wed Dec 21 2016 - 10:44:58 CST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Wed Dec 21 2016 - 10:44:58 CST