Gerd: Could you provide some images of the things you're wanting to support, along with further clarification regarding which are in existing usage versus which are hypothetical?
Peter Constable > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Gerd Schumacher > Sent: Friday, September 10, 2004 4:21 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Questions about diacritics > > Questions about diacritics > > 1. Combinations with the double (wide) macron > > I found an acute as well as a breve over the double macron, which is used > by > Latinitics. Simple diacritics stacking might not be allowed in this case, > because the double macron got a higher combining class than both of the > other diacritics. It does work well with OpenType, but I fear, it is not > legal. > If no, should there be used the CGJ for combining "normal" diacritics with > the double wide ones? The normal behaviour of the CGJ between diacritics > would not make any sense here. > > 2. Another invisible diacritics carrier > > I also found an acute on diphtongs, placed on the boundary of both letters > (au, ei, eu, oe, and ui). These graphemes are also used by Latinistics. > for sure such diacritics placing on diagraphs would be useful in more > cases > than this particular one. For example IPA tone contour marks, and the > proposed zigzag above, if applied to diagraphs would be placed best that > way. At least I am going to do so in a grammer. > Such diacritics placing would also be very welcome by some paleographers, > I > know. > In my opinion there should be a universal solution, which can be handled > easily. A nonspacing diacritics carrier would be the best solution. Are > there any serious arguments against such a proposal? > > Best regards > > Gerd >
