RE: IPA Null Consonant

Date: Tue May 27 2003 - 13:51:44 EDT

  • Next message: "Re: IPA Null Consonant"

    Andrew C. West wrote on 05/27/2003 11:50:03 AM:

    > In which case, although no-one has mentioned it thusfar, would U+0031
    > ZERO), U+0338 (COMBINING LONG SOLIDUS OVERLAY) be more correct ?
    > It does not combine in most fonts, looks dreadful in others (e.g.
    > Arial Unicode
    > MS)...

    > The drawback is that it'll probably look awful on a web page(which is
    > where I need it).

    That's a reason why it may not be a good choice: rendering of overlay
    combining marks is dodgy (there not being well-defined specification for
    how these things should combine).

    > It
    > does have the
    > advantage of not taking on any of the semantic baggage of U+00D8, U+00F8
    > U+2205.

    The semantics of 00d8 and 00f8 are *very* inappropriate from a linguistic
    point of view (they'd imply a different phonetic utterance); there is
    nothing particularly wrong with the semantics of 2205.

    > But it does bring me back to my original question, as to what the correct
    > generally accepted) form of the glyph is ? I have seen printed textswith
    > appears to be a slashed zero, but I have also seen printed texts that use
    > slashed circle that looks just like U+2205 (EMPTY SET).

    I'm sure in my past I've seen empty sets represented using a slashed zero.
    That has made me think perhaps the best choice is 2205, with alternate
    glyphs available to users.

    - 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 May 27 2003 - 14:44:08 EDT