From: John Cowan (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Wed Jul 30 2003 - 15:07:29 EDT
Jony Rosenne scripsit:
> We have here one character sequence with two alternate renditions: the
> common rendition, in which they are the same, and a distinguished rendition
> which uses two separate glyphs for the separate meanings.
Thank you for this clarification. It sounds like a fairly straightforward
disunification, analogous to S WITH CEDILLA/S WITH COMMA BELOW or EZH/YOGH,
which we have dealt with in the past. Best usage made these pairs distinct,
but they had been falsely unified based on substantial glyphic overlap
conditioned partly by having only one represented in common encodings.
> On paper, which is two-dimensional, it is a Vav with a Holam point somewhere
> above it.
When you say "it", which glyph do you mean? I would like a description
of what the two glyphs look like and how they are to be distinguished,
> the marks follow the base character.
This is a universal Unicode rule, and may get us into trouble someday when
we run into a script that attaches vowel marks to the following consonant.
(Still worse, if it does so in some uses but not others: "A Elbereth
Gilthoniel" won't be very processable if it must be encoded "A Lebrethe
-- "Clear? Huh! Why a four-year-old child John Cowan could understand this report. Run out email@example.com and find me a four-year-old child. I http://www.ccil.org/~cowan can't make head or tail out of it." http://www.reutershealth.com --Rufus T. Firefly on government reports
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 30 2003 - 15:41:25 EDT