On 07/09/2004 23:56, Philippe Verdy wrote:
You mean, you would represent a black e with a red acute accent as something like "e", ZWJ, "<red>", IBC, acute, "</red>"? That looks like a nightmare for all kinds of processing and a nightmare for rendering.From: "Peter Kirk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
By the way, any suggestion of making the QQ distinction with markup is ruled out by the principle recently expounded on the main Unicode list that separate markup cannot be applied to combining characters.
Isn't this need of allowing separate markup on combining characters addressed by the current proposal to encode a invisible base character (IBC), so that markup can be applied to a non defective combining sequence?
I understand that this proposed new character would more likely be used to allow rendering isolated combining marks, without needing to encode their spacing variant, but the sequence <IBC,combining mark> (now possibly enclosed in markup) could become a candidate for possible ligaturing by preceding it by a ZWJ, or for word-wrap exclusion with a leading WJ...
The proposed INVISIBLE LETTER is supposed to be a *spacing* character which can carry a combining mark. The idea of making it non-spacing by joining with ZWJ to some other character horrifies me. I can see an argument for a separate non-spacing invisible letter, especially as a base character for spacing combining marks when no extra space is needed before them, but even that sounds quite horrifying as a way of putting separate markup on combining marks.
-- Peter Kirk [EMAIL PROTECTED] (personal) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) http://www.qaya.org/
