> Kent Karlsson scripsit:
>
> > 4) Encode the vowel signs as combining characters, after
> > the base characters they logical follow. Consider them as
> > "double" [width] combining characters, that happen to
> > have no "ink" above/below the character they apply to,
> > but (like double width combining characters) have ink
> > over/under the glyph for the base character that follows.
>
> Cool. But an immediate problem comes to mind: what if there is a
> line break between the two base characters?
Well, if that is allowed, that would be an argument against my little
suggestion.
/kent k
