Print

Print


On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 12:10 PM, R A Brown <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets wrote:
>>
>> On 7 May 2010 10:17, R A Brown <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>>>>
>>> Seems to be some problem with ø-circumflex. Indeed, I cannot find any
>>> Unicode representation of this; as far as I can tell on a quick
>>> investigation, Unicode has symbols for ø and  ǿ only (with corresponding
>>> upper-case forms also). Is this correct?
>>>
>>>
>> No problem here with the ø̂ (ø-circumflex). It shows up fine. Copy-pasting
>> I
>> realised it was composed of two characters instead of one: ø, followed by
>> a
>> zero-width circumflex accent
>
> I assumed it was, in fact. But it did seem to me that Unicode was not being
> very future-proof.  Sure, one cannot anticipate all the vagaries that some
> future orthography may adopt. But the grave, acute & circumflex accents have
> been around for some time (since the Alexandrian grammarians introduced them
> for ancient Greek texts, in fact  :)

Actually, the combining diacritics are how Unicode is "future-proof":
you can use any diacritics singly or in any combination, with any base
letter. The precomposed characters are only included to allow for safe
round-trip conversion with earlier standards (e.g. converting from ISO
Latin-1 to Unicode and then back again will not change anything).

The problem is that a lot of software originally designed with Latin
charcters in mind doesn't properly implement combining diacritics.