From: Michael Everson (email@example.com)
Date: Mon Nov 11 2002 - 12:12:55 EST
At 08:00 -0600 2002-11-11, Peter_Constable@sil.org wrote:
>On 11/11/2002 05:42:15 AM Marco Cimarosti wrote:
>>Michael Everson 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.
>>Never say "nobody": I *do* think that Greek final sigma, final Hebrew
>>letters, and Latin long s should all be presentation forms.
>I agree that Michael's "nobody" is incorrect. I've no opinion on the long
>s, but for sigma and Hebrew gimel, etc. we have legacy encodings that
>assume the finals *are* presentation forms.
Are there not minimal pairs in Hebrew where the final form would be
expected but isn't used for some reason? There certainly is for final
sigma, which is why it is a good thing it is encoded separately.
Equivalencing s and long-s for searching is not worse than
equivalancing S and s for the same purpose, is it?
-- Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Nov 11 2002 - 12:54:16 EST