On Wed, 16 May 2012 16:03:08 -0700 Markus Scherer <markus....@gmail.com> wrote:
> The problem is a contraction x+0F72 and input text x+0F73 where the > inner 0F71 should be skipped. We can avoid this by adding a > contraction for x+0F73 (and one for the equivalent x+0F71+0F72). > > On the other hand, x+0F73 (together with x+0F71+0F72) is harmless, it > does not match the second half of anything else. Separately, we > should have the prefix contraction x+0F71 so that discontiguous > contractions match as expected, but we don't need x+0F72. This isn't the end of the story. As x = 0F71, we also need the contractions of x+0F73 (or x+0F71+0F72) with 0F72, 0F74 and 0F80 to give the pair of long vowels. We don't need to worry about <x+0F73,0F73> because that is not FCD. At least this is not an infinite sequence of contractions, unlike my hypothetical example of a contraction for combining circumflex + g. For that, I think the solution is to decompose anything containing a trailing combining circumflex. Richard.
