From: Peter Kirk (peterkirk@qaya.org)
Date: Wed Sep 15 2004 - 04:36:28 CDT
On 15/09/2004 05:48, Doug Ewell wrote:
>Peter Kirk <peterkirk at qaya dot org> wrote:
>
>
>
>>I hope that anyone who is reviewing the INVISIBLE LETTER proposal is
>>aware that this kind of usage with ZWNJ (in fact I think you probably
>>mean ZWJ) is not at all part of the proposal, but is nothing more than
>>a speculative extenstion of it dreamed up by Philippe. And it is one
>>which has many potential problems.
>>
>>
>
>However, it may be indicative of the sort of confusion that INVISIBLE
>LETTER may cause.
>
>That is to say, the benefits of creating a separate character to
>disunify the diacritic-carrying function from SPACE are certainly real,
>but so is the likelihood that people will confuse its functionality with
>that of ZWSP and ZWJ and ZWNJ and ZWNBSP, and invent bizarre
>combinations thereof.
>
>
>
Most technological advances bring with them the possibility of misuse,
but that is a poor argument to reject the advances. In this case, if
there is a danger of confusion, the correct way to handle the issue is
to explain the correct functions clearly in the text of the standard,
with a summary in the glyph table. The Unicode consortium cannot be
responsible for people breaking its clearly stated rules and so
confusing themselves.
-- Peter Kirk peter@qaya.org (personal) peterkirk@qaya.org (work) http://www.qaya.org/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 15 2004 - 10:58:58 CDT