Ken Whistler wrote on 08/06/2003 03:19:34 PM: > > Again, why should not <a, ring above, cgj, dot below> be canonically > > equivalent to <a, dot below, cgj, ring above>, when <a, ring above, > > dot below> is canonically equivalent to <a, dot below, ring above>? > > And I want a design answer, not a formal answer! (The latter I already > > know, and is uninteresting.) > > The formal answer is the true and interesting answer! > > It shouldn't be canonically equivalent because it *isn't* > canonically equivalent. > > But instead of obsessing about the particular case of the CGJ, > admit that the same shenanigans can apply to any number of > default ignorable characters which will not result in visually > distinct renderings under normal assumptions about rendering.
What I think is different here, Ken, is that a suggestion has been made that CGJ be recommended for use within a combining sequence in order to maintain a distinction for Biblical Hebrew, which it does by virtue of it's property of blocking canonical reordering. No other default ignorable has ever been specifically given this function. In introducing this function for a particular character (CGJ, in this case), the issue really arises for the first time. And I don't think it's insignificant: surely there will be implementers out there wondering what the implications are with a canonical-reordering blocker that can be inserted into sequences creating a distinction where none previously existed -- and where none was ever desired. (I think I mentioned this issue shortly after the CGJ suggestion was first raised.) - Peter --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Constable Non-Roman Script Initiative, SIL International 7500 W. Camp Wisdom Rd., Dallas, TX 75236, USA Tel: +1 972 708 7485
