Kenneth Whistler <kenw at sybase dot com> wrote: >> So I must agree with Doug that >> "CGJ + COMBINING DIAERESIS is a hack". > > It is simply a way to maintain a distinction needed for German > bibliographic data to behave as required, while representing > their data in Unicode. Call it a hack if you like, but it > satisfied the relevant parties as an appropriate means for > representing the data in question.
Maybe "kludge" would have been a less pejorative term. It's a novel use of an existing mechanism to solve a problem that had not been thought of before. >> 256 variation selectors won't do if they have all been defined >> unchangeably with the wrong properties e.g combining class. On the >> other hand, if the UTC is prepared to ignore the combining class and >> normalisation problems involved in using one combining class zero >> character, CGJ, to modify a combining mark, > > ... > This is completely in keeping with the intent of the CGJ in the > standard, and the proposal did not, in any way, "ignore the > combining class and normalisation problems" in this case. Peter apparently didn't read the section I quoted from N2819 about CGJ not causing normalization problems. -Doug Ewell Fullerton, California http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/
