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.