From: Philippe Verdy (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sat Jan 03 2004 - 10:20:21 EST
From: "Peter Kirk" <email@example.com>
> This letter looks nothing like U+01A3, which is also visible in the
> bottom line of the attachment.
You exhibit a glyph that ressembles to the two ligated digits "01", where
the second goes below the baseline. This type of glyph variant is well known
in some fonts that do not display all digits aboge the base line (notably
the 4, 7 and 9 digits often have descenders). The right part of the glyph in
Arial Unicode MS is rounded rather than angular like a "1" for this second
part. This can be seen as a matter of style. But the first time I saw this
"LETTER OI", I first identified it as a variant of "g" or "9", then the
Unicode name uggested it would read as a ligature of a "o" and a dotless "i"
I don't know which language really uses this character, but given the
various way it appears in fonts, your proposed character really is within
the variations admitted in some fonts to represent U+01A3.
If there's a bad name for "LETTER OI", then how can we interpret the Unicode
assignment, if neither the representative glyph, not available glyphs in
common fonts, nor the noramtive Unicode name will reveal abstract character
This means that the current character assignment needs clarifications... Or
something which was specified in the assignment proposal is not published in
the Unicode standard... Where can we find the Nxxx.pdf document describing
the justification for encoding this character? If no clear statement was
specifying its usage or was accepted by ISO/IEC 10646, then we have some
weak assignment here, and the assigned character already covers your
proposed character, until there's a real need to make it distinct (not
unified) from the existing assigned character.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Jan 03 2004 - 10:57:28 EST