Re: Glyphs of new Unicode 3.0 symbols

From: Timothy Partridge (
Date: Tue Nov 24 1998 - 14:50:06 EST

In message <> you recently said:

> Michael Everson wrote:
> > Maybe in some early printed texts where xiij was written, and no dots on
> > them. Heh.
> A mere-shmere glyph variant, says I.

Some older English documents consistantly use dotless i and long i (j) in
roman numerals to distinguish them from the letters i and j, as Michael
says. We already have long s in the standard and a long r (hidden in the IPA
section). If you want to accurately transcribe these older texts they would
seem to be useful. I would agree though that the dotless j in modern use is
just a glyph to put accents on to. (Esperanto uses an accented j I think.)
Perhaps a formal proposal is the best place to argue this.

Back to the subject of what would be useful on the Unicode 3.0 CD, how about
a list of the characters used by various languages? (Perhaps with
classifications like "essential" and "only in foreign words".) Could the
European subsetters be persuaded to contribute their data? The Cyrillic and
Arabic blocks also merit attention.


Tim Partridge. Any opinions expressed are mine only and not those of my employer

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:43 EDT