Re: Diaeresis vs. umlaut (was: Re: Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alphabet?)

2017-03-26 Thread Doug Ewell
Philippe Verdy wrote: Or may be, only for historic texts, we could add a combining lowercase e as an alternative to the existing diaeresis. Something like U+0364 COMBINING LATIN SMALL LETTER E, maybe? -- Doug Ewell | Thornton, CO, US | ewellic.org

Re: Diaeresis vs. umlaut (was: Re: Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alphabet?)

2017-03-26 Thread Martin J. Dürst
On 2017/03/25 03:33, Doug Ewell wrote: Philippe Verdy wrote: But Unicode just prefered to keep the roundtrip compatiblity with earlier 8-bit encodings (including existing ISO 8859 and DIN standards) so that "ü" in German and French also have the same canonical decomposition even if the

Re: Diaeresis vs. umlaut (was: Re: Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alphabet?)

2017-03-24 Thread Philippe Verdy
Given the history of characters and the initial desire to be forward compatible with previous ISO standards, I am convinced that there was no other choice than preserving the unification, otherwise it would have been impossible to reliably remap the zillions documents and databases or applications

Re: Diaeresis vs. umlaut (was: Re: Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alphabet?)

2017-03-24 Thread Hans Åberg
> On 24 Mar 2017, at 19:33, Doug Ewell wrote: > > Philippe Verdy wrote: > >> But Unicode just prefered to keep the roundtrip compatiblity with >> earlier 8-bit encodings (including existing ISO 8859 and DIN >> standards) so that "ü" in German and French also have the same >>

Diaeresis vs. umlaut (was: Re: Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alphabet?)

2017-03-24 Thread Doug Ewell
Philippe Verdy wrote: > But Unicode just prefered to keep the roundtrip compatiblity with > earlier 8-bit encodings (including existing ISO 8859 and DIN > standards) so that "ü" in German and French also have the same > canonical decomposition even if the diacritic is a diaeresis in French > and