On Sat, 27 Apr 2019 00:08:52 +0000
James Kass via Unicode <unicode@unicode.org> wrote:

> On 2019-04-26 11:08 PM, Doug Ewell via Unicode wrote:
> > This is a small percentage of the number of fonts that have all
> > four of these Armenian glyphs, but show the abbreviation mark as a
> > spacing glyph. It looks like Unicode is right, Wikipedia is right,
> > and the fonts are wrong.  
> If the Wikipedia page(s) are correct, then Unicode isn't.  Unicode 
> charts don't show the glyph on the dotted circle and the canonical 
> combining class is shown as "spacing".  The fact that Doug Ewell
> found some installed fonts displaying the character as a combining
> mark suggests that the Wikipedia pages are correct.  This character
> is listed as being unused in modern Armenian, but you'd think that it
> would have been exposed before now since the charcter has been in
> Unicode since version 1.0.

Well, ccc=0 is entirely permissible for non-spacing marks, though I find
it an invitation to misspell words.

I think the most important admissible issue is one of word boundaries.
U+055F has line_break=alphabetic, but word_break=other.  The latter
doesn't seem very friendly towards spell checkers, but perhaps there is
a good reason for it.  Word_break=other is not compatible with being a
non-spacing mark.

Another important, but probably inadmissible, issue is that of the
effect on editing. Life is easier if one can easily change the character
preceding the abbreviation sign; this would often be difficult if the
abbreviation sign were a combining mark.

What advantages would accrue from changing U+055F from Po to Mn?


Reply via email to