On 14/07/2004 21:18, Doug Ewell wrote:
...
Peter apparently didn't read the section I quoted from N2819 about CGJ
not causing normalization problems.
I did read it, but it didn't deal with the issue I was concerned about, of multiple combining marks. And I was concerned about that issue because that was the major concern expressed in the earlier discussion on variation selectors, and presented as the decisive reason why variation selectors cannot be used with combining marks.
If CGJ can be used with combining marks in situations where (as far as we know) there is in fact no problem with multiple combining marks, what is to stop variation selectors being used in the same situations? One such situation is Holam Male which never takes an additional combining mark*. So why can't we represent it as <VAV, HOLAM, variation selector>? After all in practice there is no normalisation problem with this. (By the way, I am proposing as one option <VAV, variation selector, HOLAM>, but that has been opposed on the debatable grounds that what changes is not the VAV but the HOLAM - the best description is that the whole grapheme cluster changes.)
(* There is a small problem with the pseudo-Holam Male in the name of God which can take other combining marks, but there may be other solutions to this one.)
-- Peter Kirk [EMAIL PROTECTED] (personal) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) http://www.qaya.org/
