At 11:40 AM 7/3/2001, Christopher John Fynn wrote:
> Richard Cook wrote:
>
> > --A: They are compositionally formed from the 8 trigrams.
> >
> > Rebuttal: By this reasoning, the 8 trigrams themselves ought not to have
> > been encoded, since the 8 trigrams can be generated from simple broken
> > and unbroken lines. This alone is not a reason to encode them, but
> > it is precedent.
>
>But I thought proposals for characters with decompositions into existing
>characters are no longer being accepted.
True for accented letters where the combining marks already exist, but I
don't think we want to have two sets of trigrams, one spacing and the other
combining. Do we?
>(Couldn't a ZWJ be used as a way of "joining" two trigrams as a
>hexagram?)
That would put them side by side. Don't even think about suggesting special
case semantics.
>- Chris
Edward Cherlin
Generalist
"A knot! Oh, do let me help to undo it."
Alice in Wonderland
