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

From: John Hudson (tiro@tiro.com)
Date: Tue Mar 18 2003 - 11:09:34 EST

  • Next message: Mark Davis: "Re: Custom fonts (was: Tolkien wanta-be)"

    At 02:25 AM 3/18/2003, Pim Blokland wrote:

    >On the other hand, it has been done! There are occasions on which
    >new codepoints were created for characters that were basically glyph
    >variants. The greek letter koppa springs to mind: there are two
    >glyph variants for this letter, and when it turned out font
    >designers weren't sure how it should look, new codepoints were
    >introduced for the "archaic" koppa, in order to show both variants
    >and avoid confusion.

    The two 'glyph variants' of the archaic koppa have very different semantic
    values: one is used as a letter and one is used in a numeric context. I
    think this supports the view that they should, in fact, be considered as
    separate characters, since both forms may be used in a document and it may
    be necessary, even in plain text, to distinguish them.

    John Hudson

    Tiro Typeworks www.tiro.com
    Vancouver, BC tiro@tiro.com

    Anyone who has both children and house pets has
    surely noticed that the children exposed to language
    will develop language, in turn, whereas the house
    pets will not. - Stephen Pinker



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Mar 18 2003 - 11:40:44 EST