2013/3/21 Richard Wordingham <[email protected]>: >> Further, the code chart glyphs for the ANO TELEIA and the MIDDLE DOT >> differ, see attachment. If they are canonically equivalent, and one >> is a mandatory decomposition of the other, why do they have differing >> glyphs? > > Because the codepoints are usually associated with different fonts? > For a more striking example, compare the code chart glyphs for U+2F831, > U+2F832 and U+2F833, which are all canonically equivalent to U+537F.
This is another good example where a semantic variation selector added after the MIDDLE DOT or its canonical equivalent coult help. IT would help text parsers, collators, and could also hint renderers to position the dot alternatively. Some standardized **semantic** variation selectors should be defined on characters that have large variations of usages and whose sematic is largely overloaded and ambiguous (e.g. interpretable as regular word separators or as diacritics, or as decimal separator or as numeric group separator) : whitespace, full dots, commas, middle-dots, dashes/hyphens...
