U+00D0, U+01b7 -- variants or distinct chars?

From: Peter_Constable@sil.org
Date: Mon Mar 17 2003 - 18:26:01 EST

  • Next message: Kenneth Whistler: "RE: Normalisation and Greek characters"

    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



    LtnCapEzh_RevSigma.gif
    LtnCapEzh_LrgLC.gif
    LtnCapEth_LrgSqLC.gif
    LtnCapEth_DStrk.gif

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Mar 17 2003 - 19:08:50 EST