Am Dienstag, 3. August 2010 um 02:47 schrieb David Starner: DS> ... I don't see why DS> unspecific forms should be encoded; if you want a nonspecific a, 0061 DS> is the character.
This is because I take into account the "implicit" application of a variation sequence on a base character by a higher-level protocol, which must be overridable in some way. In the next version of my proposal, I hope to make this clearer; propably I also will put another name on the "unspecific" variants. - Karl Pentzlin
