Why those extra punctuation marks would need a separate allocation? Couldn't they be encoded as *variants* of existing punctuation marks (ie. the existing standard punctuation followed by a VS)?
I think they are exactly in the scope of encoding of variants (even if most encoded variants ar for the Sinographic scripts, there should not be any prohibition for them in the Latin script) Remark: - with the EXCLAMATIVUS PUNCTUS (from which the current "!" character derives directly). The laternative encoding being to use the standard exclamation mark "!" followed by either a combining dot below (but this dot would be too low, under the base line), or a (more appropriate) combining middle dot (note how this middle dot combines specially with the Latin letter l to appear on the right of the ascender, rather than over it, and for the capital it fits in the middle of the gap left by the lower right leg: this is already handled as exception pairs in fonts for Catalan and a few other languages; we also already have examples of punctuations used with diacritics such as the macron). - on the opposite, the two variants of "colon" with sideway comma, could be in fact simply a pair of characters (the standard colon or semi-colon followed by the character for the sideway comma), without needing any VS. The sideway comma is not really a variant as its own spacing glyph and does not really attach to the colon or semicolon on the left ; such combination is akin to other combination of punctuation signs (such as "::" or "!?" or ":-" or "--"), I don't think it is a case for the encoding of the sideway comma as a diacritic. If there are cases were the two characters may need to be ligated we could bind them with a joiner control in the middle. 2016-05-19 20:23 GMT+02:00 Deborah W. Anderson <[email protected]>: > Hi David, > I was present last week, and can relate the outcome. We ran short on time > at the UTC, so L2/16-080 was postponed until the next meeting. What would > be helpful, I think, would be to take on board the comments from > http://www.unicode.org/L2/L2016/16156-script-recs.pdf and revise your doc > accordingly (i.e., include the ones recommended for encoding, and, if you > can, see if you can provide additional information on others). >
