> http://www.bartleby.com/images/pronunciation/oomacr.gif
> http://www.bartleby.com/images/pronunciation/oobreve.gif
All of this talk with using CGJ, etc, for double diacritics has me a bit
worried. It seems to be becoming rather the latest faddish thing to find
new uses for CGJ.
In this case, I don't see the point of complicating anything or adding
more rules for CGJ use.
Why not just encode two new double combining marks to go along with the
already known double diacritics at U+0360, U+0361, U+0362... Whether we
like that approach or not from a purist point of view, it makes more sense
to me than adding any complexity to CGJ parsing, etc, etc. These are just
two more examples of something we already have; and there are not likely
to be thousands of them, perhaps only a few more.
Rick
