RE: Question on Canonical equivilance

• Previous message: Peter Kirk: "No Invisible Character - NBSP at the start of a word"
• Maybe in reply to: Tim Greenwood: "Question on Canonical equivilance"
• Next in thread: Kenneth Whistler: "RE: Question on Canonical equivilance"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
• Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

> From: unicode-bounce@unicode.org [mailto:unicode-bounce@unicode.org]
On Behalf
> Of Tim Greenwood

> All of the spacing combining marks (general category Mc) except
> musical symbols have a canonical combining class of 0. So, for example
>
> 0B95 (TAMIL LETTER KA) 0BC7 (TAMIL VOWEL SIGN EE - stands to the left
> of the consonant) 0BBE (TAMIL VOWEL SIGN AA - on the right) is
> canonically distinct from 0B95 0BBE 0BC7 - even though I presume that
> they would generate an identical glyph. Why is this? The Canonical
> Combining Class Values in UCD.html has entries and values for left
> attached and right attached - but no characters have these values.

The question that comes to my mind isn't why some Mc marks don't have
non-zero classes Right Attached class, but rather why any Mc marks *do*
have non-zero classes.

There are 352 marks with a canonical combining class > 0. Only 8 of
these, all musical symbols, are Mc.

Peter Constable

• Next message: Kenneth Whistler: "RE: Question on Canonical equivilance"
• Previous message: Peter Kirk: "No Invisible Character - NBSP at the start of a word"
• Maybe in reply to: Tim Greenwood: "Question on Canonical equivilance"
• Next in thread: Kenneth Whistler: "RE: Question on Canonical equivilance"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
• Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Nov 24 2004 - 12:24:34 CST