Philippe continued: > On Saturday, August 09, 2003 12:49 AM, Michael Everson wrote: > > > At 14:22 -0700 2003-08-08, Kenneth Whistler wrote: > > > > > Philippe, you are tilting at windmills, here. There is no chance > > > that the UTC is going to consider such a character, in my > > > assessment, let alone give it the properties you suggest. > > > > Nor WG2 either. > > Why that? Because I suggest something that some other may think > as useful to fill a large gap in Unicode for spcing diacritics, but I'm > not trusted enough due to my errors or confusions here, so that this > suggestion would be endorsed by more "serious" UTC or WG2 > members?
Mostly because there is no "large gap" here in the first place. > Why do you think it is stupid to have a single carrier character that > would avoid adding new spacing diacritics, when the standard > combining diacritics could be used without less "quirks" like > "defective" sequences just to produce the desired effect? Because the mechanism for doing so -- application to SPACE or to NBSP -- has been specified by the standard for a decade now. > If you think that spacing diacritics are stupid, We do not. Some of them are necessary compatibility characters. Others have distinct usage as spacing forms that warrant their separate encoding. > why then are they > given these properties and not deprecated (no more recommanded) > in the standard, Because the ones in the standard, and particularly the ASCII and Latin-1 spacing diacritics, were required for a number of legacy and implementation reasons... > in favor of the SPACE+diacritics sequences, ...and because these are not, and never have been, canonically equivalent. --Ken "Well then, if he be mad, as he is, and with a madness that mostly takes one thing for another, and white for black, and black for white, as was seen when he said the windmills were giants, and the monk's mules dromedaries, flocks of sheep armies of enemies, and much more to the same tune, it will not be very hard to make him believe that some country girl, the first I come across here, is the lady Dulcinea; and if he does not believe it, I'll swear it; and if he should swear, I'll swear again; and if he persists I'll persist still more, so as, come what may, to have my quoit always over the peg. Maybe, by holding out in this way, I may put a stop to his sending me on messages of this kind another time..."
