From: Peter_Constable@sil.org
Date: Mon Mar 17 2003 - 18:26:01 EST
I've got a question about a couple of typeforms. The issue is whether they
can be considered glyph variants of existing chars (U+00d0 and U+01b7), or
whether they should be considered distinct characters.
U+00D0: The glyph that appears in the code charts for U+00D0 is shown in
LtnCapEth_DStrk.gif. Now, the African Reference Alphabet document that was
produced at a conference in Niamey in 1978 proposeda small letter that
looks like U+00F0 LATIN SMALL LETTER ETH, but the capital counterpart is
like the glyph shown in LtnCapEthLrgSqLC.gif. This is quite different in
appearance from the representative glyph for U+00D0. Should this be
considered a glyph variant of U+00D0, or should it be considered a
distinct character?
U+01B7: The glyph that appears in the code charts is that shown in
LtnCapEzh_LrgLC.gif. In the Dagbani language of Ghana, they use a small
letter that looks like U+0292 LATIN SMALL LETTER EZH, but the capital
counterpart that they use is like the glyph shown in
LtnCapEzh_RevSigma.gif. This is quite different in appearance from the
representative glyph for U+01B7. Should this be considered a glyph variant
of U+01B7, or should it be considered a distinct character?
- Peter
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Constable
Non-Roman Script Initiative, SIL International
7500 W. Camp Wisdom Rd., Dallas, TX 75236, USA
Tel: +1 972 708 7485
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Mar 17 2003 - 19:08:50 EST