On 08/07/2003 12:56, Philippe Verdy wrote:
Suppose your character PATAH-HIRIQ is accepted, and is
defined as being canonically equivalent to PATAH-HIRIQ.
Then the definition of canonical equivalence with all Unicode
algorithm would allow any of these algorithm to decompose
it to NFD as a pair of characters PATAH and HIRIQ, which
are then immediately reordered, into HIRIQ then PATAH.
The canonical exclusion just forbids recombining them
together into PATAH-HIRIQ.
I am aware of this, and that is why I specified in my second posting a
canonical decomposition of hiriq - patah.
So it remains the NFC sequence: <consonnant, hiriq, patah>
And your proposed character is useless (it becomes a
compatibility character, not recommended, exactly similar
to the "Greek Dialitika with Tonos").
I take the point. Well, at least it would be specifying a distinct
graphical form, unlike dialitika with tonos. But I accept that there is
actually little to be gained by specifying such characters.
The only way to solve your problem is to make it only a
compatibility decomposition, which is excluded from NFC
and NFD decomposition and reordering... This would be,
I think, the first accepted combining character with a
<compat> decomposition and not a canonical decomposition.
In addition, the Unicode stability policy would require that
the defined <compat> decomposition be given in canonical
order.
Llook for example, the many Arabic <compat> decompositions, ...
Which are you referring to? In the Arabic block I can find only four
such decompositions, 0675-0678, and I don't see how the issue here can
be relevant as neither of the components are themselves decomposable. Or
are you talking about the presentation forms? I thought these had to be
compatibility decompositions as there is formatting involved.
...which could not be made canonical for the simple reason that
the Unicode policy pact guarantees that the decompositions
will be defined in canonical order, and only include a character
pair for canonical decompositions whose second character is
not canonically decomposable...
-- Philippe.
As you got me looking in the Arabic presentation forms, I found an
interesting Arabic rough equivalent of what we might need for Hebrew:
0640, which is not really a letter but just a spacer, but can carry
combining marks, see FCF2-FCF4.
--
Peter Kirk
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://web.onetel.net.uk/~peterkirk/
