>From: David Hopwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>For all of these characters, use as a spacing diacritic is actually much >less common than any of the other uses listed above. Even when they are used >to represent accents, it is usually as a fallback representation of a combining >accent, not as a true spacing accent. > >So, there would have been no practical problem with disunifying spacing >circumflex, grave, and tilde from the above US-ASCII characters, so that the >preferred representation of all spacing diacritics would have been the >combining diacritic applied to U+0020. Apart from the problems Kenneth Whistler mentioned. You would get the same problems with the ISO 8859-1 spacing accents but there are less people using them than with those in ASCII. One problem is that some characters can be used as an accent and as a normal base character, and some characters that Unicode defines a decomposition of, is not a composed character in some countries. So in some contexts is is wrong to decompose some characters that could be ok to decompose in others. That is one reason I prefer NFC as it do not decompose characters. > >> For a lot of text handling precomposed characters are much easier to >> handle, especially when the combining character comes after instead of >> before the base character. > >I thought you said approximately the opposite in relation to T.61 above :-) > Sorry, got the last part wrong in my haste. I meant it is easier when the combining character comes before the base character. Dan
