Philippe Verdy wrote on 07/23/2003 10:19:09 PM: > However, its canonical decomposition into <COMBINING DIERESIS, > COMBINING ACUTE ACCENT> who are both of combining class > 230 (Above), has an impact in renderers: they are supposed to stack > one above the other, so the ACUTE ACCENT (oxia, tonos) should > appear *above* the DIERESIS (Dialytika). But usage in Greek (similar > cases occur with Vietnamese Latin letters with two above diacritics), > show that they do not stack up, but above diacritics are really > combined (the tonos accent is written in the middle of the two dots of > the dialitika). > > So this is alredy a case where diacritics can (and should) ligate by > default, and that a CGJ may be used to remove (?) this ligature of > accents and instead use the vertical stack.
Not needed, IMO, nor would it be a good idea to use CGJ as a rendering control. A while ago there was an idea that CGJ could be used as a rendering control in exactly the opposite way: presence of CGJ would give the side-by-side stacking needed for Vietnamese and Greek. That idea was rejected, however. (Besides, the positioning for Greek and for Vietnamese are not entirely the same.) > If this is wrong, then > how do you combine a macron with a dieresis? *Macron* and diaeresis? How can these combine in any way other than vertical stacking? > If correct placement of diacritics must be specified, could we use the > ideographic description characters to create those combining > sequences with a more descriptive composition rule? Yikes! My initial reaction is that I hope we don't go that direction. - Peter --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Constable Non-Roman Script Initiative, SIL International 7500 W. Camp Wisdom Rd., Dallas, TX 75236, USA Tel: +1 972 708 7485
