a character for an unknown character

[Janusz S. Bien]

Quote/Cytat - Michael Everson <everson at evertype.com> (Wed 21 Dec 2016  
05:25:30 PM CET):

> I still believe that we need INVISIBLE LETTER  
> http://unicode.org/review/pr-41-invisible.pdf
>
> I think that for the display of combining characters without a base  
> character that the recommended NBSP makes no sense. NBSP is supposed  
> to glue the characters on either side of it to itself. It makes  
> sense that the following character, say COMBINING ACUTE ACCENT,  
> would be glued to it. But why should the two of those be glued to  
> whatever precedes?

I strongly support this. In our historical corpus of Polish

http://korpusy.klf.uw.edu.pl/en/IMPACT_GT_2/

we have in particular words ending with 'COMBINING LATIN SMALL LETTER  
O' (U+0366).

We had to precede the character with NBSP as the vase, but to preserve  
the correct segmentation into words we had to treat NBSP as a letter.

Best regards

Janusz

-- 
Prof. dr hab. Janusz S. Bień -  Uniwersytet Warszawski (Katedra  
Lingwistyki Formalnej)
Prof. Janusz S. Bień - University of Warsaw (Formal Linguistics Department)
jsbien at uw.edu.pl, jsbien at mimuw.edu.pl, http://fleksem.klf.uw.edu.pl/~jsbien/