From: Peter Kirk (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Mon Jan 05 2004 - 17:37:21 EST
On 05/01/2004 13:42, Kenneth Whistler wrote:
>Peter Kirk wrote in response to Philippe Verdy:
>>But you do seem to have found a real problem with the standard. If the
>>character name is not guaranteed to be an accurate means of
>>identification of the character, and the glyph is not normative, how can
>>I know from the standard that U+01A3 is intended to be this pan-Turkic
>>gha, i.e. that that is its fundamental character identity, and that it
>>is not in fact a character in some other even more obscure variant Latin
>>alphabet which is actually named or pronounced "oi"? Of course the notes
>>do help, as does the glyph, but these are not normative.
>You know by making use of the standard, where the informative
>notes (= gha, * Pan-Turkic Latin alphabets) were added precisely
>to enable the proper identification.
>When the combination of character name and representative
>glyph and associated informative annotations is insufficient
>to correctly identify a character in the standard, the
>recourse is to Ask the Experts and request further annotation
>of the standard to assist future users from running into the
Thank you, Ken.
As you will see, I have requested precisely this clarification for
U+0184/0185, to clarify that this letter is used in pan-Turkic alphabets
as well as in Zhuang. I am also asking for a change in the reference
glyph for U+0185, because in both Zhuang and pan-Turkic this should be
much shorter, and distinguished from "b" primarily by its size.
-- Peter Kirk email@example.com (personal) firstname.lastname@example.org (work) http://www.qaya.org/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jan 05 2004 - 18:08:22 EST