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

[piotrunio-2...@wp.pl via Unicode]

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@corp.unicode.org> napisał(a):  
piotrunio-2...@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