On Wed, 02 Jul 2014 21:13:30 +0300 "Jukka K. Korpela" <[email protected]> wrote:
> 2014-07-02 20:34, Philippe Verdy wrote: > > CGJ would be better used to prevent canonical compositions but it > > won't normally give a distinctive semantic. > In the question, visual difference was desired. The Unicode FAQ says: > “The semantics of CGJ are such that it should impact only searching > and sorting, for systems which have been tailored to distinguish it, > while being otherwise ignored in interpretation. The CGJ character > was encoded with this purpose in mind.” > http://www.unicode.org/faq/char_combmark.html Unfortunately, the Unicode FAQs need a thorough review. There is quite a bit with a low to zero truth value, especially about CGJ. > So CGJ is to be used when you specifically want the same rendering > but wish to make a distinction in processing. As Philippe has pointed out, a CGJ can affect rendering by encouraging renders to apply marks in the order they appear in the normalised texts. I am puzzled to the difference between diaeresis and umlaut; if black letter styles do distinguish them, as has been denied, then CGJ does affect the rendering, for CGJ may be used to distinguish a diaeresis from an umlaut. Richard. _______________________________________________ Unicode mailing list [email protected] http://unicode.org/mailman/listinfo/unicode
