Re: Tildes on vowels

From: Tex Texin (
Date: Sun Aug 11 2002 - 00:42:01 EDT

I agree with your amendment to my comments. Certainly it shouldn't
disqualify a character with distinguishing semantics from being encoded
in Unicode, just because it happens to be depicted as a superscript...

tex wrote:
> On 08/10/2002 05:42:04 PM Tex Texin wrote:
> >2) Superscript, subscript, combining above, and other forms of
> >identifying placement of characters, are better left to markup or other
> >rendering systems and file formats (and not for a vehicle intended for
> >plain text.)
> I will partially disagree with Tex. It's true as a general rule that such
> things should be handled by markup or rich text, for general documents, but
> I think there are special application areas in which I think it is correct
> to encode superscripted, subscripted or combining letters. One example is
> phonetic transcription, in which phonetic symbols can be superscripted with
> particular semantics. Digitising of manuscripts for paleographic research
> can be another appropriate application for this.
> But, I completely agree with his comments about the PUA. If there is a need
> for
> >a facility to
> >document transcribers all around the world
> then PUA makes sense if those transcribers spread around the world involve
> a handful of people working with some experimental encoding because it has
> not yet been worked out how all the details of the documents should be
> encoded, hence it's too early for a proposal, or the documents in question
> are not currently real candidates for incorporation into the standard (e.g.
> Phaistos), or they are insisting on encoding in some way that is counter to
> what experts has already agreed should be the preferred encoding for the
> characters in question.
> In general, interchange between document transcribers all around the world
> should be done the same way that interchange of digital texts should always
> be done: using an international character set encoding standard, preferably
> Unicode. If it's really worth interchanging, it's worth adding to Unicode.
> The Unicode coded character set continues to be an open set precisely
> because there are still characters worthy of interchange that are not yet
> part of the standard.
> - Peter
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Peter Constable
> Non-Roman Script Initiative, SIL International
> 7500 W. Camp Wisdom Rd., Dallas, TX 75236, USA
> Tel: +1 972 708 7485
> E-mail: <>

Tex Texin   cell: +1 781 789 1898
Xen Master                
Making e-Business Work Around the World

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Sat Aug 10 2002 - 22:53:22 EDT