John Hudson wrote on 07/24/2003 12:49:11 PM: > * Of course, this gets screwed up by Unicode normalisation, but that's just > another example of what we've been talking about all along. Personally, I
> would rather see a 'right meteg' character encoded than use CGJ or another > mechanism to force right positioning. Of course, one of the nasty details in all these suggestions is that, if we do start using CGJ in the way suggested and also get a new character RIGHT METEG (for which we need to dream up an appropriate combining class -- pick a number from 1 to 199!), then we need to consider what the significance (if any) will be of the distinctions between (e.g.) QAMETS + RIGHT METEG QAMETS + CGJ + RIGHT METEG RIGHT METEG + QAMETS RIGHT METEG + CGJ + QAMETS Of course, we'll probably just disregard RIGHT METEG + (CGJ + ) QAMETS + (CGJ + ) METEG and variations thereof as just sequences with no linguistic meaning (i.e. misspellings). - Peter --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Constable Non-Roman Script Initiative, SIL International 7500 W. Camp Wisdom Rd., Dallas, TX 75236, USA Tel: +1 972 708 7485
