Re: Romanized Cyrillic bibliographic data--viable fonts?

From: J M Craig (
Date: Mon Aug 26 2002 - 19:24:34 EDT

Thanks for the suggestion--of U+0361 (I don't think U+0360 is going to
do what I want terribly well). I'm assuming that U+0361 IS in your font
(I hadn't checked yet). One of the problems with that approach is that I
don't have enough control over the conversion algorithm to make that
work--or maybe I could make the right ligature half a non-translated
character--hmm. I'll have to think about that. At any rate, what I'm
working with is an algorithm that is much happier with round-trippable
conversions (which the double breve wouldn't give me). So, no, I don't
think that'll work. Shoot.

I appreciate your pointing out about the copyright issues--I try to take
copyrights appropriately seriously. I am in contact with the developer
of the font in question (from Agfa/Monotype) and I'm REALLY hoping
they'll agree to add the characters in question. If anyone has access to
the Arial Unicode MS font and can check to see if U+FE20 and U+FE21
combine properly, I'd be grateful--I don't want to spend the money to
get it if it won't solve the display problem!

James Kass wrote:

>J. M. Craig wrote,
>>... The ultimate problem is, I can't find an available font
>>that properly supports the combining half marks FE20 and FE21.
>Why not use U+0360 and U+0361 instead?
>>Unicode 0078 FE20 0077 FE21
>><t> <left half ligature> <s> <right half ligature>

>>...would become:
>>Unicode 0078 0360 0077
>><t> <combining inverted breve> <s>
>>... or, three characters vs. four characters to write the same thing.
>James Kass,
>who is now adding U+FE20 .. U+FE23 to the font here.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Mon Aug 26 2002 - 17:59:02 EDT