Ar 22:52 -0700 1998-09-01, scríobh Kevin Bracey:
>It does partly clarify things. My next question then is which glyph would be
>better to use for U+015E?
The only glyph you should use (in a general purpose font, not in a display
font or something) for U+015E is an S with a cedilla attached to it. You
should ignore "Scommaaccent" as spurious. You should use U+015E for Turkish
and Azeri, and any of the other Turkic languages writing .
The glyph you should use (in a general purpose font, not in a display font
or something) for U+0218 is an S with a comma floating below it. You should
use U+0218 for Romanian.
>I'd appreciate the input of anyone from Romania or Turkey, which are the
>two countries that actully use this character, according to
I can tell you that Alexandra Stãtescu of Romania would agree to the
following: ISO/IEC 6937 is incorrect. There are two characters, one with
COMMA BELOW and one with CEDILLA. In small print they might look similar.
In bad fonts (and Turkey and Romania have been supplied with bad fonts) the
wrong diacritic might appear. In display fonts sometimes any blob under the
letter will do. But the canonical _character_, taught to children in
schools, is a proper cedilla for Turkish etc. and a proper comma below for
The Latvian letters called "WITH CEDILLA" likewise should never ever be
drawn with cedillas. This is another inherited error in the standard.
Apparently, although the bad name encourages ignorant font producers to
draw the wrong glyphs which aren't appropriate for Latvian, there aren't
any other languages apart from Livonian which use these characters, so
there isn't any conflict as there was between Romanian and Turkish.
-- Michael Everson, Everson Gunn Teoranta ** http://www.indigo.ie/egt 15 Port Chaeimhghein Íochtarach; Baile Átha Cliath 2; Éire/Ireland Guthán: +353 1 478-2597 ** Facsa: +353 1 478-2597 (by arrangement) 27 Páirc an Fhéithlinn; Baile an Bhóthair; Co. Átha Cliath; Éire
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:41 EDT