From: Peter Kirk (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Mon Jan 05 2004 - 18:22:17 EST
On 05/01/2004 14:35, Peter Kirk wrote:
> On 05/01/2004 14:12, email@example.com wrote:
>> ... With regards to U+0185, could it be
>> said that the informative glyph in TUS 2.0, 3.0 and 4.0 is a bit
>> misleading, or does that glyph represent a variance from the
>> text(s) with which you're familiar?
> Yes, you are right, and using a very British hyperbole. The TUS 4.0
> glyph is quite simply incorrect. ...
Not hyperbole, of course, but its opposite, litotes or understatement.
> I conclude that the same glyph can be used for Chuang and Azerbaijani,
> but it needs to be significantly shorter than the Unicode reference
That is, shorter than the reference glyph in TUS 4.0. This reference
glyph needs to be changed. I would suggest a form identical to U+0446.
-- Peter Kirk firstname.lastname@example.org (personal) email@example.com (work) http://www.qaya.org/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jan 05 2004 - 19:12:57 EST