Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: Vallian (was: How to minimize "words")

From:T. A. McLeay <relay@...>
Date:Monday, February 26, 2007, 7:11
On 26/02/07, Philip Newton <philip.newton@...> wrote:
...
> *nods* and Unicode also caters for that -- as best I remember, it has > different "weights" for various kinds of diacritics specifying which > ones should be closer to the base character, so diacritics should > stack in the correct order regardless of which order you encode them > in (e.g. a + combining diaeresis + combining tilde should "do the > right thing", at least according to Unicode, though I don't remember > which order they think is the correct one in this case -- combinations > of letter + diacritic above + diacritic below or vice versa should > definitely work fine, though, if your rendering engine's up to it).
No: a + combining diaeresis + combining tilde has the tilde atop the diaresis a + tilde + diaeresis has the diaresis atop the tilde. Who is Unicode to say you can't have a fronted nasalised vowel as easily as you can have a nasalised fronted one? But there's some combining characters that combine over two letters. They always come at the very top; that's probably what you're thinking of. Also, Unicode does specify a way for diacritics to stack, but that's only in terms of where they go: an acute accent always goes directly above a circumflex according to Unicode, which leads to precisely the problem you mention below:
> (Though the Vietnamese preference for tone markes such as acute and > grave to be next to vowel quality modifiers such as a circumflex are, > I believe, not specifically catered for; but in any event, such > language-specific behaviour is typically relegated to rendering > engines which are more aware of such things, rather than something > Unicode -- which is intended for all languages -- specifies.
Indeed. Tho there are two characters COMBINING ACUTE/GRAVE TONE MARK, which combine the way Vietnamese wants, but they're still declared to be equilavent to the non-TONE form. The SIL fonts Charis and Doulos treat the TONE/non-tone characters equivalently, but provide a mechanism for enabling Vietnamese mode, which makes them both kern to the right/left. Gentium treats them differently, with the TONE characters doing what Vietnamese expects, and the other ones stacking vertically. I'm pretty sure Charis and Doulos are right in this regard... -- Tristan.

Reply

Henrik Theiling <theiling@...>