John Cowan <email@example.com> writes:
> Janko Stamenovic wrote:
> > - Should be four additional characters for Cyrillic Serbian letters which
> > are different in italics from Russian letters introduced to Unicode?
> No, this is really awful. Different national conventions for writing
> what is the same letter (and only in italic face, at that) ought not to be
> perpetuated *in a character standard*. Which is not the same as saying
> that they should be abandoned altogether.
If I understand this correctly the different appearences of some lower-
case Cyrillic letters are gathered at one code point? Here I'm tīnot
talking about the special Serbian variants which I've never seen, but
the difference between a small "T" and "m" which both could be a lower-
case T in Russian and Bulgarian.
If I understand this correctly, I will see a small T in a regular font,
and "m" if I switch to italics? I am somewhat puzzled by this. When I
learnt Russian, I never learnt these forms, thinking that I would never
write them anyway. But when I came to Bulgaria, I found that they might
well appear in print to, and not being italic at all.
I reckon that you wouldn't be likely to mix a small T and "m" in the
same text, so from that point of view, it could well be said a font
issue. Still, they're visually so completely different that, you hardly
can call them glyph variants.
-- Erland Sommarskog, Stockholm, firstname.lastname@example.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:57 EDT