Odp: Re: RE: Why was L2/25-061 provisionally assigned?

[piotrunio-2004@wp.pl]

I don't use Unicode normalization myself and I'm not really in a position to make decisions on canonical/normalized representations, but since stability policies prevent one of the representations from normalizing to the other, if the usage of combining characters were standardized to compose to ˈ̩ or ˌ̍ for phonetic usage, most likely one of the representations would be recommended whereas the other would go to the 'Do Not Emit' list or something.   The use of anchor points is quite font technology specific and therefore off topic, though the point still stands with any method of maintaining systematic typographical alignment of all combining character combinations.   Dnia 18 kwietnia 2025 21:38 Charlotte Eiffel Lilith Buff via Unicode <unicode at corp.unicode.org> napisał(a):  Which would be the canonical representation, spacing low line + combining line above or spacing high line + combining line below? Any font that bothered to define proper anchor points for diacritics on modifier symbols would display both sequences identically.   Am Do., 17. Apr. 2025 um 21:41 Uhr schrieb   piotrunio-2004 at wp.pl  via Unicode <  unicode at corp.unicode.org >:  The way I see it is that U+02C8 and U+02CC are spacing versions of U+030D and U+0329 diacritics, and therefore to compose a spacing character with both diacritics, the spacing character of one and combining character of the other could be used. And there is already precedent of spacing diacritics composed with combining characters, particularly U+0385 which is composed as U+00A8 U+0301 (although the precomposed version is encoded as it's essential for CP869, CP1253, and ISO 8859-7 compatibility).   Dnia 17 kwietnia 2025 21:05 Doug Ewell via Unicode <  unicode at corp.unicode.org > napisał(a):   piotrunio-2004 at wp.pl  wrote:   I really don't get why [the character proposed in] L2/25-061 would be  provisionally assigned to U+208F when it can be composed with  combining characters (ˈ̩ U+02C8 U+0329) or (ˌ̍ U+02CC U+030D) which  should be equivalent to the proposed character, and the potential use  of the existing combining characters is not mentioned in the proposal,  but the proposal owner was informed of the compositions before the  Recommendations to UTC #183 were made.   While the quoted passage on the Submitting Character Proposals page makes sense for “normal letter with diacritic” proposals, which were once commonplace, I don’t think it’s typical to attach combining marks to a modifier letter such as U+02C8 or U+02CC, or for UTC to recommend composition in such cases.   The NormalizationTest file does not include any instances of combining characters used with modifier letters, except for a few wacky, cross-script, stress-test cases involving a combination of Latin letters, Hebrew accents, and Adlam modifiers.   Perhaps someone has authoritative info on whether the difference in handling is policy or just the way it’s been.   --  Doug Ewell, CC, ALB | Lakewood, CO, US |  ewellic.org ewellic.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://corp.unicode.org/pipermail/unicode/attachments/20250418/64b509ec/attachment-0001.htm>