Re: Merging combining classes, was: New contribution N2676

From: Peter Kirk (
Date: Tue Oct 28 2003 - 17:11:42 CST

On 28/10/2003 13:35, John Cowan wrote:

> ...
>>But Unicode specifications currently say nothing about the possibility
>>of moving under-diacritics to an over-character position for
>>typographical reasons except for combination of _g_ and cedilla.
>Nothing needs to be said, because glyphs are not normative.
Yes, but presumably when I encode transliterated Hebrew in Unicode and
the transliteration standard shows a glyph of a g with a line above it,
it would be more correct for me to encode as g with macron above rather
than g with macron below. Or should I go with the function and expect a
special transliteration font to do what I need? Probably the people who
should decide this are at SBL as they are the ones who specify this
transliteration. So I am copying John Hudson - John you may need to look
at the rest of the thread. (Does SBL have any plans for its own Hebrew
transliteration font, or does it expect regular Latin-based fonts to
support transliteration?)

Peter Kirk (personal) (work)

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jan 18 2007 - 15:54:25 CST