Re: Latin letter GHA or Latin letter IO ?

From: Michael Everson (everson@evertype.com)
Date: Mon Jan 05 2004 - 18:53:13 EST

Next message: Kenneth Whistler: "Re: Latin letter GHA or Latin letter IO ?"

Previous message: Peter Kirk: "Re: Latin letter GHA or Latin letter IO ?"
In reply to: Peter Kirk: "Re: Latin letter GHA or Latin letter IO ?"
Next in thread: Philippe Verdy: "Re: Latin letter GHA or Latin letter IO ?"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

At 15:51 -0800 2004-01-05, Peter Kirk wrote:

>>In Pan-Turkic, though, it looks just like CYRILLIC SOFT SIGN in all
>>the sources I have seen. For lots of languages.
>
>Precisely. I meant that the glyph must be clearly distinct from
>U+0062, and so should be identical to U+0446. The Pan-Turkic glyph
>was probably really identical to the soft sign because printers
>would have used the same type wherever possible.

We agree! We agree! We agree!

-- 
Michael Everson * * Everson Typography *  * http://www.evertype.com

Next message: Kenneth Whistler: "Re: Latin letter GHA or Latin letter IO ?"
Previous message: Peter Kirk: "Re: Latin letter GHA or Latin letter IO ?"
In reply to: Peter Kirk: "Re: Latin letter GHA or Latin letter IO ?"
Next in thread: Philippe Verdy: "Re: Latin letter GHA or Latin letter IO ?"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jan 05 2004 - 19:29:34 EST