(Regret I hadn't yet read this post prior to my last post) Peter said, in reponse to Ken:
> Why is it a kludge to insert some cc=0 control character into the text for > the sole purpose of preventing reordering during canonical ordering of two > combining marks that do interact typographically and so should but > nevertheless do not have the same combining class; and, moreover, to do so > using a control character that was not created for that purpose? > > The answer seems so obvious, I wouldn't know how to begin responding. > > And the fact that it achieves some desired effect has no bearing on being > described as a kludge -- every kludge achieves some desired effect. If it > were otherwise, the given practice would never have been conceived. Exactly correct. I am surprised Ken posed the question. > If we want to insert a control character to prevent reordering under > canonical ordering, I think it would be preferable to create a new control > character for just that purpose: that would give a character that could be > used elsewhere for the very same purpose without needing to worry about > what unanticipated and undesirable effects might result by hijacking a > control created for some completely unrelated purpose. For instance, you > suggested RLM. Suppose next week we discover a very similar issue in a LTR > script; do we want to insert RLM to prevent mark reordering in that case? [...] Very fine cases in point of what I was trying to say in more general terms. K
