On Saturday, June 28, 2003 1:15 AM, Kenneth Whistler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Philippe Verdy said: > > > I understand the frustration: if Unicode had not attempted to define > > combining classes, which were not necessary to Unicode, all > > existing combining characters would have been given a CC=0 > > (or all the same 220 or 230 value). > > Uh...., no. > > Under this scheme, <a, diaeresis, underdot> would be distinct > from <a, underdot, diaeresis>, and the basis for defining a > canonical ordering which would equate them would be missing. I did not want to criticize *all* the comining classsystem, only the one used for Hebrew text, so the context in which the message was written was important... An isolated sentence can be quite introgating out of its context... Sorry, but this sentence is out of scope and creates a confusion about something I did not want to say.
