> Still, they're visually so completely different that, you hardly
> can call them glyph variants.
Of course you can -- and should -- since they are variant presentations
of the same underlying character.
The Cyrillic italic forms are no more aberrant in the range of their
abstract glyph forms than the differences between Fraktur and Roman
glyphs for the Latin alphabet, for instance.
And the glyph variation in Latin and Cyrillic scripts pales
compared to the systematic (and nonsystematic) glyph variation
when you start to deal with various cursive ("running") styles for
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:57 EDT