Re: Coptic II?

From: Asmus Freytag (
Date: Fri Dec 27 2002 - 03:01:16 EST

  • Next message: Michael Everson: "Re: Coptic II?"

    At 10:09 PM 12/25/02 +0330, Roozbeh Pournader wrote:
    > > In fact the glyph for Kurdish Q often looks like a large q, similarly to
    > > Cyrillic h; this is an inappropriate glyph for Latin Q.
    >This should be enough evidence. Any samples?

    OK (assuming that this can be substantiated by samples) we now have the
    following score

    Legacy data.

    Legacy data would tend to have been created with Latin/Cyrillic character
    sets, which unify the Latin and Kurdish q. Disunification would make
    conversion *from* legacy data context dependent. (Conversion to legacy sets
    could be done by mapping both types of Q to the same value, i.e. Latin Q,
    in the legacy set). However, the prospect of forever seeing both Latin and
    Cyrillic Q used in Kurdish text, due to contamination from legacy data
    leads me to award on negative point to the disunification proposal:

    Score -1


    If the 'q' form of capital Q is any common, maintaining the unification
    would introduce a language dependency in the rendering process. If the 'Q'
    form is not wholly un-acceptable, then its arguably a permissible
    fall-back. Standard fonts lacking language specific glyphs would be usable
    (after a fashion) for Kurdish, while the reverse is not true. However, the
    font technology to handle a language specific form of capital q clearly
    does exist. However, Latin/Greek/Cyrillic rendering normally does not
    require such mechanisms for rendering 'plain' text.

    Score: 0.5


    Having the letter q both be part of Kurdish words (in Cyrillic) and Latin
    words, would make sorting of mixed lists a bit tricky. I'm not sure how far
    the level of required trickery exceeds some of the trickery one needs to
    apply for unusual cases in other languages (e.g. the case in Danish where
    'aa' can either be 'aa' (if a across an intra-compund word boundary) or
    However, on the priniciple that disunification would simplify the sorting
    problem I'd award a 1/2 point.

    Score: 0.5

    In summary, with the information on capital q the score tends to even out.

    If evidence could be adduced that a) no legacy data exists, or b) the user
    community wishes this problem on itself, a proposal could acquire a small
    positive score, possibly enough to overcome inertia.


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Dec 27 2002 - 03:30:14 EST