On 19 Jun 2013, at 09:04, Denis Jacquerye <[email protected]> wrote: > Furthermore, the cedilla can also have a proper cedilla form as opposed to > the Latvian or Livonian comma below form in transliteration systems.
This has nothing to do with the Marshallese/Latvian conflict, though. > ALA-LC romanizations use cedilla with r as they do under c or s. Does ŗ contrast with r̦ in ALA-LC romanization? > BGN/PCGN and UNGEGN romanizations use cedilla with d as they do under h, s, t > or z. > DIN 1460-2 uses the cedilla under d, k, l, n as it does under c, h, s, t and > z. If those things are a problem, then solving this problem for Marshallese simply does nothing about that problem. But it solves the problem for Marshallese. > If the 4 Marshallese cedilla characters are encoded as single characters, > does this mean the d, k, l, r with proper cedilla in those romanizations > would also have to be encoded as single characters? No; it doesn't have any implications for that data. > Encoding 1 combining diacritic character is more efficient than encoding 12 > characters. Do you think that encoding one new COMBINING MARSHALLESE CEDILLA will not cause problems both with existing COMBINING COMMA BELOW and COMBINING CEDILLA? Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
