I agree with David. I had mentioned this earlier as a possiblity, but the latest UTC changes in Table 5-3 to use ignorables make it even more attractive. (Cf http://www.macchiato.com/utc/grapheme_cluster.html)
The sole change required would be for the CGJ to be Me instead of Mn. If we made this change, it would provide for a mechanism for representing diacritics over multiple characters, without the addition of any other characters -- or the wait for them to be encoded. Mark ————— Γνῶθι σαυτόν — Θαλῆς [For transliteration, see http://oss.software.ibm.com/cgi-bin/icu/tr] http://www.macchiato.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Hopwood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 14:19 Subject: Re: How to make "oo" with combining breve/macron over pair? > -----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----- > >
