Micheal Everson schrieb: >> My opinion on the cedilla mess is the following: >> >> * Add preemptively LATIN [CAPITAL|LOWERCASE] LETTER * WITH CEDILLA ATTACHED >> for every Latvian/Livonian character currently in UNicode.
> Why? Latvian and Livonian don't use letters with "proper" cedilla attached. Maybe my english wasn't perfect here; of course I think that for writing Latvian the existing characters shall be used. I meant "for" in the sense of "foreach" or "for loop" in programming languages. And yes, I think not only the four character required for marshallese, but also the other ones (g, k, and r). >> (Don't use terms like MARSHALLESE [CAPITAL|LOWERCASE] LETTER [M|N] -- such >> entities don't exist from a character encoding point of view.) >Yes they do. Cf. U+0406 CYRILLIC CAPITAL LETTER BYELORUSSIAN-UKRAINIAN I. The >character name exists to distinguish it from other characters and to guide the >user in the character's use. But that character exists as a base letter with a distinct shape. There is no distinct base letter marshallese m or n. >> * Declare the list of exceptions to Cedilla rendering officially closed. >> Whenever another such thing (say, LATIN CAPITAL LETTER P WITH COMMA BELOW / >> LATIN LOWERCASE LETTER P WITH TURNED COMMA ABOVE) occurs in real life, it >> will be encoded ... WITH COMMA BELOW. > I think that is understood, but where would you "declare" this? In the explanatory notes in the introduction to the standard. I don't have the book here to suggest a more exact location in the moment. --Jörg Knappen >Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
