Philippe Verdy wrote, > From: "D. Starner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Unicode will not allocate any more codes for characters that can be made > > precomposed, as it would disrupt normalization. > > But what about characters that may theorically be composed with combining > sequences, but almost always fail to be represented successfully?
Likewise. > If such ligature has a distinct semantic from a ligature created by ligaturing > separate letters for presentation purpose, the character is not a ligature (the > AE and OE "ligated glyphs" are distinct abstract characters) . The "gb" combination mentioned in the original post is considered a letter in the Yoruba alphabet. It is not a ligature, it is a digraph. Likewise, in the Spanish alphabet, the "ll" combination is considered a letter. It is also a digraph. Both of these combinations are already handled by ASCII. (Note that the AE and OE "ligated glyphs" *are* ligatures.) > The case of dot below however should be handled in fonts by proper glyph > positioning and probably not by new assigned codepoints, unless this is only one > possible presentation form for an actual distinct abstract character that may > have other forms without this separate diacritic (for example if g with dot > below was only one presentation for an abstract character that may be also > renderd with a small gamma).... Yoruba doesn't use any marks with the letter "g". It does use some diacritics like acute, grave, and macron to indicate tones. It also uses a mark below the letters "e", "o", and "s" which alter the pronunciation of those letters. This is where there remains some controversy. One faction prefers the use of a vertical line below which should attach to the base letter, and the other faction prefers to use the dot below. Best regards, James Kass
