-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Rick McGowan wrote: > > > http://www.bartleby.com/images/pronunciation/oomacr.gif > > http://www.bartleby.com/images/pronunciation/oobreve.gif > > All of this talk with using CGJ, etc, for double diacritics has me a bit > worried. It seems to be becoming rather the latest faddish thing to find > new uses for CGJ.
There is only one use of CGJ: to link characters into a single grapheme cluster, which behaves differently than separate grapheme clusters for the purposes of editing and application of combining marks. The proposals that have been put forward are just minor variations on that. > In this case, I don't see the point of complicating anything or adding > more rules for CGJ use. This is less complicated than adding all the double diacritics that would be needed, and also supports functionality needed for mathematics. Remember that enclosing marks already apply to grapheme clusters formed using CGJ in the draft of 3.2; the fact that nonspacing marks can't be used this way is an *exception*, that was only made for normalisation reasons. > Why not just encode two new double combining marks to go along with the > already known double diacritics at U+0360, U+0361, U+0362... Whether we > like that approach or not from a purist point of view, it makes more sense > to me than adding any complexity to CGJ parsing, etc, etc. The parsing of my proposal (e.g., allowing <o, CGJ, o, CGJ, breve>) is no more complicated than what is needed anyway to implement the current text of PDUTR#28. > These are just two more examples of something we already have; and there > are not likely to be thousands of them, perhaps only a few more. In mathematics, diacritics can extend across an arbitrary number of characters, and I count more than 30 that could reasonably be used in that way. A general mechanism is more appropriate. - -- David Hopwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Home page & PGP public key: http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hopwood/ RSA 2048-bit; fingerprint 71 8E A6 23 0E D3 4C E5 0F 69 8C D4 FA 66 15 01 Nothing in this message is intended to be legally binding. If I revoke a public key but refuse to specify why, it is because the private key has been seized under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act; see www.fipr.org/rip -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: noconv iQEVAwUBPIVENjkCAxeYt5gVAQGOMQf/V8Nrssep98johLEktMJvhwkixQxm9c7A fgm8X5EQz47gEf/NHItRxaL5Ch3kTFO1jN2D+m6+uUxcmzh9BfY1kXMVrXB+iw/5 z65J1SvL16rUlmep2np4DYTEvzO6tuNi4yZTCDO2xZUNWMtGAQvQw91tggJ4BvMT JGiwL2FdNY8hzEh5nM2C1XUTqpAKl9gTB9JmvGrzgxuqO0/LjXAR/3Y+Ecr6Tizd 9G1GUQaO1EKa2eiEiQFzqVaJH3xvAfKGewII2pGJj9AQwkj0/7bcHbrNeKOyY1fR VvaDX47ZjgUJfmMriYiS5zrL2jYef4FMZ2kRHfhku6HdnIQJL7pcGg== =0NtN -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
