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

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

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@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-2...@wp.pl  via Unicode <  unicode@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@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 ewellic.org