From: Doug Ewell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the case of INVISIBLE LETTER, it seems likely -- based on the
comments of experts -- that the benefits outweigh the disadvantages.
But new control characters (and quasi-controls like IL) have tended to
cause more problems and confusion for Unicode in the past
Peter Kirk peterkirk at qaya dot org wrote:
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
At 05:21 PM 9/14/2004, Anto'nio Martins-Tuva'lkin wrote:
On 2004.09.14, 17:06, Jörg Knappen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My classic for this situation is the german -burg abbreviature often
seen in cartography: It is -bg. with breve between b and g.
Why not U+0062 U+035D U+0067 ? I guess that the
On 15/09/2004 04:02, Peter Constable wrote:
...
IIRC, the scenario of IL *not* followed by a combining mark was not one
explicitly discussed by the proposers before preparing their proposal. I
would consider it a possibility that the advance width could be in
proportion to the width of the
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
In LaTeX2e with the Cork coding (for TeXnicians: \usepackage[T1]{fontenc})
there is a so-called compound word mark. It has the functions of
teh ZERO WIDTH NON JOINER in the UCS: It breaks ligatures, it can be used
to produce a final s in the middle of a word.
By design, it has zero width but x
]
To: Philippe Verdy [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Doug Ewell [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2004 6:06 PM
Subject: Re: Questions about diacritics
In LaTeX2e with the Cork coding (for TeXnicians: \usepackage[T1]{fontenc})
there is a so-called compound word mark. It has
Philippe Verdy wrote:
Good point, but is the ZWNJ control supposed to be used as a base
character with a defined height? I thought it was just a control for
indicating where ligatures are preferably to avoid when rendering,
leaving it fully ignorable if the renderer has no other option than
Since INVISIBLE LETTER is spacing, wouldn't it make more sense to define
Isn't rather INVISIBLE LETTER *non-spacing* (zero-width minimum), even
though it is *not combining* ?
I mean here that its width would be zero unless a visible diacritic expands
it. It is then distinct from other
On 2004.09.14, 17:06, Jörg Knappen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My classic for this situation is the german -burg abbreviature often
seen in cartography: It is -bg. with breve between b and g.
Why not U+0062 U+035D U+0067 ? I guess that the typical presentation
of this convention uses a regular
On 14/09/2004 18:28, Philippe Verdy wrote:
...
So I do think that the LateX2e compound word mark should map to
ZWNJ,INVISIBLE LETTER rather than just ZWNJ...
The (-)burg abbreviation as (-)bg (with a non-spacing but
non-combining breve) should then be encoded with the invisible letter,
in
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On
Behalf Of Philippe Verdy
Since INVISIBLE LETTER is spacing, wouldn't it make more sense to
define
Isn't rather INVISIBLE LETTER *non-spacing* (zero-width minimum), even
though it is *not combining* ?
The intent in the proposal is to
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
From: Gerd Schumacher [EMAIL PROTECTED]
2. Another invisible diacritics carrier
I also found an acute on diphtongs, placed on the boundary of both letters
(au, ei, eu, oe, and ui).
Wouldn't such diacritic be hold by the currently proposed invisible base
character (in the Public Review section of
Philippe Verdy verdy underscore p at wanadoo dot fr wrote:
I also found an acute on diphtongs, placed on the boundary of both
letters (au, ei, eu, oe, and ui).
Wouldn't such diacritic be hold by the currently proposed invisible
base character (in the Public Review section of the Unicode
From: Peter Kirk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Surely the intention is for INVISIBLE LETTER, combining acute to be
equivalent (although it cannot be canonically equivalent) to spacing
acute, U+00B4? But then would this kind of ligature mechanism with ZWNJ
and U+00B4 be appropriate? I would think not.
On 13/09/2004 15:45, Philippe Verdy wrote:
From: Gerd Schumacher [EMAIL PROTECTED]
2. Another invisible diacritics carrier
I also found an acute on diphtongs, placed on the boundary of both
letters
(au, ei, eu, oe, and ui).
Wouldn't such diacritic be hold by the currently proposed invisible
From: Doug Ewell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Philippe Verdy verdy underscore p at wanadoo dot fr wrote:
I also found an acute on diphtongs, placed on the boundary of both
letters (au, ei, eu, oe, and ui).
Wouldn't such diacritic be hold by the currently proposed invisible
base character (in the Public
Questions about diacritics
1. Combinations with the double (wide) macron
I found an acute as well as a breve over the double macron, which is used by
Latinitics. Simple diacritics stacking might not be allowed in this case,
because the double macron got a higher combining class than both
Schumacher
Sent: Friday, September 10, 2004 4:21 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Questions about diacritics
Questions about diacritics
1. Combinations with the double (wide) macron
I found an acute as well as a breve over the double macron, which is
used
by
Latinitics. Simple
20 matches
Mail list logo
