From: Karl Pentzlin (email@example.com)
Date: Thu May 29 2003 - 20:22:22 EDT
Am Donnerstag, 29. Mai 2003 um 23:56 schrieb Kenneth Whistler
KW> António asked:
>> I've just downloaded the PDF files with 4.0 additions (U40-*.pdf). One
>> question: How is one supposed to tell apart the glyphs for U+1D29 and
>> U+1D18?... Or one isn't?...
KW> Visually, you usually couldn't, any more than you can tell
KW> apart U+0050 LATIN CAPITAL LETTER P and U+03A1 GREEK CAPITAL
KW> LETTER RHO in a typical, stylistically harmonized font.
KW> Don't ask me to vouch for and explain the vagaries of Uralic
KW> notational practice, which I find alien. ;-) ...
I share this feeling (e.g. looking at U+1D0F and U+1D11, imagining
these near an U+006F on an 800x600 screen - clearly, the character GREEK
LETTER SMALL CAPITAL OMICRON is missing).
The question remains for what reason U+1D18 and U+1D29 are considered
to be different due to a minimal semantic distance (usage for two
different sounds, as "g" in "give" and "g" in "general" which are not
encoded differently) in spite of their identical appearance (and
U+1D29 is - despite of a Greek origin which applies also e.g. to
U+0059 - no Greek letter as Greek is not an Uralic language).
On the other hand, if someone proposes an "abbreviation dot" which has
a far greater semantic distance to U+002E FULL STOP in the use implied
by its name (closing sentence delimiter), and which has in some
typography even a different appearance to the latter (somewhat smaller) -
what comments would that evoke?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu May 29 2003 - 21:00:44 EDT