(Disregarding your netiquette breach of quoting an off-list message on
a list...)
> Unicode characters can be said "deprecated", or strongly discouraged
> howeer they are still valid, and then it's best to describe
> what should be
> their correct behavior. My question was there only for completeness,
> something that the Public Review Issues is supposed to enhance and
> document officially, even for "deprecated" characters.
There is no point in doing undue work for characters that shouldn't be
used
(whether deprecated or not).
> > The (typographic) dot(s) above should be removed if there is a
> > combining character of class 230 [centred above] in a combining
> > sequence starting with a soft-dotted character. The file
> > UCD-4.0.0.html only says "An accent placed on these characters...";
> > but the "on" here should be interpreted as "class 230". That could
> > be clarified.
>
> Thanks for admitting that the current description may easily
> be misread
> as meaning "any diacritic".
Well, it was not my formulation. I've always referred to "(current)
combining class 230". I might not have written it explicitly every time
though.
> With such misreading, a simple
> font renderer
> may just check the presence of the first diacritic to use a
> dotless glyph,
Not likely, though. I do think typographers are smart too. ;-)
> I would like to have exact comments of what "on" means: does it *only*
> refer to the class 230? What is the impact of format controls inserted
> in a combining sequence,
They break the combining sequence. Applying a combining character
to a format control is, while legal, not something that has a
well-defined
behaviour.
...
> - Hangul syllables are very well defined
Hangul is a problem case. But I will not go into that here and now.
/kent k
