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

From: Anto'nio Martins-Tuva'lkin (antonio@tuvalkin.web.pt)
Date: Tue Mar 25 2003 - 17:11:56 EST

  • Next message: Muhammad Asif: "Re: Detecting UTF-8 Locale Question"

    On 2003.03.18, 22:04, <Peter_Constable@sil.org> wrote:

    > 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?

    Well, considering the context (Niamey Conference etc.), I supposed that
    this glyph is intended for Ewe (or any other african languages using
    U+0189), and not for Faroese, Icelandic etc (which use U+00D0) nor
    Vietnamese, Croatian, Lappish etc (which use U+00D0). (I apparently
    overlooked your sentence «proposed a small letter that looks like U+00F0
    LATIN SMALL LETTER ETH» -- silly me.)

    Naturally, the glyph prescribed in the Unicode charts for U+0189 is
    identical to those of U+00D0 and U+0110, a stroked "D" (I just consulted
    U0000.pdf, U0100.pdf and U0180.pdf, downloaded from the unicode web site
    in june 2002 -- hopefully they're current), but, as said, differencing
    in the same language/alphabet the LC forms U+0256 and U+0111 (or U+00F0
    ?) might very well have been the motive to create this glyph.

    (Some time later.) But... OTOH, I understand what you mean. The *shape*
    of the glyph suggests that it is intended to be an upper case form of
    eth, indeed U+00D0.

    I see. That would be much more complicated to get somewhere, wouldn't
    it? Not directly a Unicode issue, but worth some consideration. BTW --
    how old is the "stroked D" glyph? IIRC, U+00F0 was initially an erse,
    uncial shape letter, with no upper case form...

    -- ____.
    António MARTINS-Tuválkin | ()|
    <antonio@tuvalkin.web.pt> |####|
    R. Laureano de Oliveira, 64 r/c esq. |
    PT-1885-050 MOSCAVIDE (LRS) Não me invejo de quem tem |
    +351 917 511 459 carros, parelhas e montes |
    http://www.tuvalkin.web.pt/bandeira/ só me invejo de quem bebe |
    http://pagina.de/bandeiras/ a água em todas as fontes |

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Mar 25 2003 - 21:38:06 EST