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

Date: Tue Mar 18 2003 - 17:04:42 EST

  • Next message: Andy White: "RE: Re. and Rs. currency sign"

    Anto'nio Martins-Tuva'lkin wrote on 03/18/2003 09:46:30 AM:

    > > 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 proposed a 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?
    > I guess it is yes a glyph variant but rather for U+0189.

    Eh? No, the only thing it could be a glyph variant of is U+00D0. What would
    make you think to make it a variant of 0189?

    - 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 : Tue Mar 18 2003 - 17:49:41 EST