> > > If I were designing a font, I would simply make the in/out mark > attachment > > point near the top/middle of the parentheses, so that it drops down > around the > > "base" mark, and then attaches any subsequent marks as if the parentheses > > weren't there. I think you're making this too complicated. > > But glyphs for combining marks may be of different widths, for example a > (glyph for a) dot below is much narrower than a (proposed) wiggly line > below. Or, consider LENIS MARK and DOUBLE LENIS MARK (both for Teuthonista, > and both apparently used together with parentheses). The usual, and > general, > way of handling that is to actually split the > character-that-goes-on-both-sides of something that may have different > widths in different instances. Of course you also need width info for > combining marks. I would still consider splitting to be a needless > complication here, and instead encode begin/end pairs of combining > parentheses instead of what is in N4106.
No, the usual and general way of handling this is, if the uni-width of parenthesis is not desirable for esthetic reasons, to create precomposed _glyphs_ of the parenthesised diacritic by the font designer which are mapped to a character sequence. Szabolcs
