> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > Of Peter Kirk
> It is interesting that SIL has seen the need to include precomposed > combinations with U+0321 palatalized hook and U+0322 retroflex hook. > Perhaps this is because these diacritics cannot be automatically > combined with their base characters... It is because there are problems with using 0321 and 0322 productively that make it a bad idea in general. Use of 0321 and 0322, along with overlays, should be considered not best practice. (I wouldn't object to deprecation, but the users of the source standards whence these beasts came might have objections.) > "U+F25A LATIN SMALL LETTER HENG" is probably not intended as an h-ng > combination but as h with a hook, probably a glyph variant of F222. The name "heng" was used because that is a name that has been used in literature for a while now. (Cf. Pullum & Ladusaw.) I'm not sure it would be appropriate to consider it a glyph variant of F222. I didn't get as much documentation on Judeo-Tat orthographies as I would have liked, and so the relationship to F222 in those orthographies is still unclear to me. But this character has recently appeared in a proposal from China submitted to WG2, for usage in phonetic transcription. Peter Peter Constable Globalization Infrastructure and Font Technologies Microsoft Windows Division
