Combining Marks and Variation Selectors
Richard Wordingham via Unicode
unicode at unicode.org
Sun Feb 2 19:22:50 CST 2020
On Sun, 2 Feb 2020 16:20:07 -0800
Eric Muller via Unicode <unicode at unicode.org> wrote:
> That would imply some coordination among variations sequences on
> different code points, right?
> E.g. <0B48> ≡ <0B47, 0B56>, so a variation sequence on 0B56 (Mn,
> ccc=0) would imply the existence of a variation sequence on 0B48 with
> the same variation selector, and the same effect.
That particular case oughtn't to be impossible, as in NFD everything in
sight has ccc=0. However TUS 12.0 Section 23.4 does contain an
additional prohibition against meaningfully applying a variation
selector to a 'canonical decomposable character'. (Scare quotes because
'ly' seems to be missing from the phrase.)
> On 2/2/2020 11:43 AM, Mark Davis ☕️ via Unicode wrote:
> I don't think there is a technical reason for disallowing variation
> selectors after any starters (ccc=000); the normalization algorithm
> doesn't care about the general category of characters.
More information about the Unicode