Re: unicode Digest V4 #3

From: Peter Kirk (peterkirk@qaya.org)
Date: Mon Jan 05 2004 - 11:18:11 EST

  • Next message: Peter Kirk: "Re: unicode Digest V4 #3"

    On 05/01/2004 07:27, Philippe Verdy wrote:

    >From: "Peter Kirk" <peterkirk@qaya.org>
    >
    >
    >>On 05/01/2004 05:53, Philippe Verdy wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>>...
    >>>
    >>>Note that the name I gave just suggests its approximate look. It does not
    >>>necessarily mean its is semantically correct. So of course, if the only
    >>>
    >>>
    >use
    >
    >
    >>>of
    >>>this i with lower-right hook has a better traditional name, it should
    >>>
    >>>
    >have a
    >
    >
    >>>name that matches this tradition if it is ever encoded. But for now, in
    >>>absence of this character in Unicode, the composition:
    >>> <Latin small letter dotless-i><combining retroflex hook below>
    >>>or
    >>> <Latin capital letter I><combining retroflex hook below>
    >>>is quite good to represent it, and it works with Turkish/Azeri case
    >>>mappings.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>Unfortunately in the same old alphabets the Turkish/Azeri case mappings
    >>don't work with the normal I/i as these follow the normal western case
    >>mappings.
    >>
    >>
    >
    >Why not then use the Latin ton six for all texts in that period, and allow
    >glyph variants to show the I with right hook glyph used in early Latin
    >Azeri?
    >
    >
    >
    That might work with Azeri, but not with Nogai and Khakass which
    apparently used these two glyphs as separate letters (though this might
    need checking, not an easy task!)

    -- 
    Peter Kirk
    peter@qaya.org (personal)
    peterkirk@qaya.org (work)
    http://www.qaya.org/
    


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jan 05 2004 - 12:01:07 EST