On 09/09/2004 19:06, Mike Ayers wrote:
No one is talking about colouring part of a *character*, only part of a combining character sequence, i.e. something which the UTC has decided should be represented as a sequence of characters, not as an indivisible whole.
> From: Asmus Freytag [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, September 08, 2004 6:05 PM
> At 05:53 PM 9/8/2004, Mike Ayers wrote:
> Amen. Would that include a discussion of the > colored diacritics thing? Does the issue of markup colors > vs. font colors even fall on Unicode ground? > > Should it?
No, it shouldn't. Unicode deals with characters, not parts of characters, despite making use of character composition to form some of those characters. As such, getting involved in sub-character issues, such as how to color parts of characters, is out of scope. That's how I see it. But of course, my vision doesn't mean much. What does the UTC see? Is this still then an undecided issue?
A small proportion of these combining character sequences are alternatively represented as precomposed characters. This doesn't apply to any of the Hebrew combining character sequences which prompted this discussion - except for a few for which there are precomposed presentation forms which are composition exceptions. But these alternative representations are irrelevant, especially for scripts to which they do not apply.
-- Peter Kirk [EMAIL PROTECTED] (personal) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) http://www.qaya.org/
