Unicode "no-op" Character?
Richard Wordingham via Unicode
unicode at unicode.org
Wed Jul 3 18:20:24 CDT 2019
On Wed, 3 Jul 2019 17:51:29 -0400
"Mark E. Shoulson via Unicode" <unicode at unicode.org> wrote:
> I think the idea being considered at the outset was not so complex as
> these (and indeed, the point of the character was to avoid making
> these kinds of decisions).
Shawn Steele appeared to be claiming that there was no good, interesting
reason for separating base character and combining mark. I was
refuting that notion. Natural text boundaries can get very messy -
some languages have word boundaries that can be *within* an
indecomposable combining mark.
More information about the Unicode