On 2/2/2020 5:22 PM, Richard Wordingham
via Unicode wrote:
On Sun, 2 Feb 2020 16:20:07 -0800
Eric Muller via Unicode wrote:
That would imply some coordination among variations sequences on
different code points, right?
E.g. <0B48> ≡ <0B47, 0B56>,
On Sun, 2 Feb 2020 16:20:07 -0800
Eric Muller via Unicode 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 0
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
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.
Mark
On Sun, Feb 2, 2020 at 10:09 AM Richard Wordingham via Unicode <
unicode@unicode.org> wrote:
> On S
On Sun, 2 Feb 2020 07:51:56 -0800
Ken Whistler via Unicode wrote:
> What it comes down to is avoidance of conundrums involving canonical
> reordering for normalization. The effect of variation selectors is
> defined in terms of an immediate adjacency. If you allowed variation
> selectors to be
Richard,
What it comes down to is avoidance of conundrums involving canonical
reordering for normalization. The effect of variation selectors is
defined in terms of an immediate adjacency. If you allowed variation
selectors to be defined for combining marks of ccc!=0, then
normalization of se
On Sat, 1 Feb 2020 17:59:57 -0800
Roozbeh Pournader via Unicode wrote:
> They are actually allowed on combining marks of ccc=0. We even define
> one such variation sequence for Myanmar, IIRC.
>
> On Sat, Feb 1, 2020, 2:12 PM Richard Wordingham via Unicode <
> unicode@unicode.org> wrote:
>
> >
They are actually allowed on combining marks of ccc=0. We even define one
such variation sequence for Myanmar, IIRC.
On Sat, Feb 1, 2020, 2:12 PM Richard Wordingham via Unicode <
unicode@unicode.org> wrote:
> Why are variation selectors not allowed for combining marks? I can see
> a reason for t
8 matches
Mail list logo
