PUA (BMP) planned characters HTML tables

James Kass via Unicode unicode at unicode.org
Wed Aug 14 21:49:34 CDT 2019

On 2019-08-15 12:25 AM, Asmus Freytag via Unicode wrote:
> Empirically, it has been observed that some distinctions that are claimed by
> users, standards developers or implementers were de-facto not honored by type
> developers (and users selecting fonts) as long as the native text doesn't
> contain minimal pairs.

Quickly checked a couple of older on-line PDFs and both used the comma 
below unabashedly.

Quoting from this page (which appears to be more modern than the PDFs),

"Ij keememej ḷọk wōt ke ikar uwe ippān Jema kab ruo ṃōṃaan ilo juon booj 
jidikdik eo roñoul ruo ne aitokan im jiljino ne depakpakin. Ilo iien in 
eor jiljilimjuon ak rualitōk aō iiō—Ij jab kanooj ememej. Wa in ṃōṃkaj 
kar ..."

It seems that users are happy to employ a dot below in lieu of either a 
comma or cedilla.  This newer web page is from a book published in 
1978.  There's a scan of the original book cover. Although the book 
title is all caps hand printing it appears that commas were used.  The 
Marshallese orthography which uses commas/cedillas is fairly recent, 
replacing an older scheme devised by missionaries.  Perhaps the actual 
users have already resolved this dilemma by simply using dots below.

More information about the Unicode mailing list