Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from December 2009
Re: PATCH: .pod updates for qr/\X/
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next
From:
karl williamson
Date:
December 23, 2009 19:19
Subject:
Re: PATCH: .pod updates for qr/\X/
Message ID:
4B32DD7E.5010107@khwilliamson.com
Tom Christiansen wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 11:48:48 MST, Karl wrote:
>
> C<\X> matches quite well what normal (non-Unicode-programmer) usage
> -would consider a single character: for example a base character
> -(the C<\PM> above), for example a letter, followed by zero or more
> -diacritics, which are I<combining characters> (the C<\pM*> above).
> +would consider a single character. As an example, consider a G with some sort
> +of accent mark over it (a diacritic). There is no such single character in
> +Unicode, but something like one can be constructed by using a G followed by a
> +Unicode combining accent, and would be displayed by Unicode-aware software as
> +if it were a single character.
>
> Karl, please let me I apologize in advance that this may sound
> nitpicky; I do not mean to be. Thank you for all your hard work.
>
> I wonder whether you might consider changing:
>
> would consider a single character. As an example, consider a
> G with some sort of diacritic mark, such as an arrow. There
> is no such single character in Unicode, but one can be
> composed by using a G followed by a Unicode combining upwards
> arrow below and would be displayed by Unicode-aware software
> as if it were a single character.
>
Sure, but which is best in your estimation? What you said I said just
above, isn't in fact what I said, as I made no mention of an arrow, and
I used the phrase 'something like' which you omitted. Just below you
talk about a grave accent, and include 'something like', and further
below use 'arrow" in one place and 'upwards arrow' in another, and omit
'something like'. I'm happy to defer to your expertise. But I'm not
sure precisely what you want.
> to read:
>
> would consider a single character. As an example, consider a
> G with some sort of diacritic mark over it, such as a grave
> accent. There is no such single character in Unicode, but
> something like one can be constructed by using a G followed
> by a Unicode combining grave, and would be displayed by
> Unicode-aware software as if it were a single character.
>
> or even:
>
> would consider a single character. As an example, consider a
> G with some sort of diacritic mark, such as an arrow. There
> is no such single character in Unicode, but one can be
> composed using a G followed by a Unicode combining upwards
> arrow below and would be displayed by Unicode-aware software
> as if it were a single character.
>
> One can say just "diacritic" for "diacritic mark", and one could
> also use "combining diacritic mark" or "superimposed diacritic
> mark", but perhaps that's needless redundancy moreso than it is
> clarifying redundancy.
>
> thanks,
>
> --tom
>
> PS: I have an 800-line disquisition upon this matter (available
> upon request) of which the text above is its distillation.
>
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next