Jony Rosenne scripsit: > We have here one character sequence with two alternate renditions: the > common rendition, in which they are the same, and a distinguished rendition > which uses two separate glyphs for the separate meanings.
Thank you for this clarification. It sounds like a fairly straightforward disunification, analogous to S WITH CEDILLA/S WITH COMMA BELOW or EZH/YOGH, which we have dealt with in the past. Best usage made these pairs distinct, but they had been falsely unified based on substantial glyphic overlap conditioned partly by having only one represented in common encodings. > On paper, which is two-dimensional, it is a Vav with a Holam point somewhere > above it. When you say "it", which glyph do you mean? I would like a description of what the two glyphs look like and how they are to be distinguished, please. > the marks follow the base character. This is a universal Unicode rule, and may get us into trouble someday when we run into a script that attaches vowel marks to the following consonant. (Still worse, if it does so in some uses but not others: "A Elbereth Gilthoniel" won't be very processable if it must be encoded "A Lebrethe Glithnoile".) -- "Clear? Huh! Why a four-year-old child John Cowan could understand this report. Run out [EMAIL PROTECTED] and find me a four-year-old child. I http://www.ccil.org/~cowan can't make head or tail out of it." http://www.reutershealth.com --Rufus T. Firefly on government reports
