On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 1:02 PM, Richard Wordingham < richard.wording...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> 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. > I am not following. Given contractions 0F71+0F71 (needed as a prefix of the next one) 0F71+0F71+0F72 0F71+0F73 what other contractions do we need to add to avoid which problem? 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. > In principle, you are right. However, such a contraction is such a weird case that I think we could just forbid it. That is, forbid a set of contractions that would cause us to add infinite overlap contractions. I know of only one contraction in DUCET+CLDR that contracts a non-starter plus a starter (1037+1038 = Myanmar signs dot below [ccc=7] + visarga), and this contraction does not overlap with any decomposition mapping. markus -- Google Internationalization Engineering
