Ted Hopp scripsit: > So would this new right-holam character be a combining character?
Just so. > If so, its > use should be highly restricted, similar to what is done with shin dot and > sin dot. Applying a right-holam character to anything other than a bare vav > should be considered an error (no other combining marks should be allowed, > including HEBREW ACCENT characters). Unicode allows any combining character to be attached to any base character whatsoever. However, putting a dagesh into a DEVANAGARI KA, or placing a circumflex over an ARABIC MEEM, is pretty certain to cause bad rendering, and may screw up other text processes such as syllabication. > Would FB4B continue to decompose into 05D5 05B9? Yes. Normalization stability requires it. > It seems to me that either I'm misinterpreting things, or most people in > this discussion would prefer a new combining character to a new base > character. If this is so, I'd appreciate an explanation of why, because I > don't understand it. Assertions of the form "Mark X is only used with base form Y" have proven to be false too often in the past. -- John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.ccil.org/~cowan http://www.reutershealth.com Charles li reis, nostre emperesdre magnes, Set anz totz pleinz ad ested in Espagnes.
