Re: Discrepancy between Names List & Code Charts?

From: Kenneth Whistler (
Date: Wed Aug 14 2002 - 18:42:38 EDT

> This is my first posting to this list so please be gentle with me!

*pounces and begins to play with the little furry creature (gently)*

> Can someone help me with this confusion as I am unsure how I should
> structure these "WITH CEDILLA" characters in fonts I'm working on.

See TUS 3.0, pp. 162-163 for a discussion of these characters with
cedillas (or ogoneks) below.

The characters whose names are "XXX WITH CEDILLA" often (but not always)
show variation between glyphs with cedillas and glyphs with commas
below (or even other hooklike shapes). This variation is conditioned
by at least: the shape of the letter itself, where a rounded bottom or
a flat line in the center of the bottom of the character lends itself
to a cedilla attachment, but a glyph such as that for a k does not;
by the particular language being rendered; by different typographical
traditions; and by font styles.

The characters whose names are "XXX WITH COMMA BELOW" are intended to
be just rendered with commas below -- ordinarily they should never show
up with a cedilla in the glyph.

For the Latvian letters you are probably best off following the conventions
as currently shown in the code charts and as used in Arial MS Unicode,
rather than earlier fonts.

> Am I just displaying my ignorance of European writing systems or does the
> Unicode Names List and/or the Code Charts need updating???!!!

The names list is correct, and cannot be updated -- the character names
are fixed and unchangeable.

The Code Charts have been updated already, with the Unicode 3.0 (and
later) charts showing the glyph conventions recommended in the
discussion in the text of the standard, whereas the Unicode 2.0 (and
earlier) charts showed cedillas universally for all of the Latvian


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Wed Aug 14 2002 - 16:49:46 EDT