>However by Unicode specifications both it and an attached lower cedilla >on _g_ may be rendered by unattached turned comma above which interacts
>with characters not in their respective combining classes. And this new >turned comma above of necessity would always be applied before normal >upper class 230 diacritics. Seems like the problem is more complicated than that. It suggests that for many fonts, U+0067 LATIN SMALL LETTER G + U+0327 COMBINING CEDILLA and U+0067 LATIN SMALL LETTER G + U+0312 COMBINING TURNED COMMA ABOVE would have exactly the same rendering. Some applications would need to know this and treat U+0067 U+0327 the same as U+0067 U+0312 as equivalent. I wonder if there's call for some sort of table of Unicode sequences that aren't canonically equivalent but render the same. --Rich Gillam Language Analysis Systems, Inc.
