From: Doug Ewell (email@example.com)
Date: Sat Nov 09 2002 - 14:21:10 EST
Michael Everson <everson at evertype dot com> wrote:
> I like to think of the long s as similar to the final sigma. Nobody
> thinks that final sigma should be a presentation form of sigma.
In fact, my very first post to this list, in November 1997, was to ask
whether sigma and final sigma were really just presentation forms of one
another. (Ken Whistler replied that compatibility with ISO 8859-7 was
largely responsible for the disunification.)
Round s and long s are more different than medial sigma and final sigma,
because English-language usage (prior to about 1820) generally calls for
round s only at the end of a word, whereas German-language usage
(non-Antiqua) calls for round s at subword boundaries as well. So even
language information is not sufficient here; you have to know *which*
Wachstube is meant. That would seem to justify separate encoding.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 09 2002 - 14:53:15 EST