From: Philippe Verdy (email@example.com)
Date: Fri Jan 30 2004 - 16:58:48 EST
From: "Peter Kirk" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> On 30/01/2004 09:44, Kenneth Whistler wrote:
> >... The latter would be easier
> >to implement, but then would lead to arguments among the
> >perfectionists as to why "small capital" should be a secondary
> >weight distinction when capital versus small is a tertiary
> >weight distinction. And so on and so on...
> Thank you, Ken. Well, this perfectionist is arguing why this should be a
> PRIMARY weight distinction when capital versus small is tertiary,...
I also agree that small capitals have a tertiary or quaternary differences,
but it's not clear if they are a variant of lowercase when used as a font
style for all letters, or of uppercase letters.
So I bet they should have the same distinction as between lowercase and
uppercase, so that case-insensitive collation (which ignores secondary
differences) will work correctly even if tertiary and quaternary difference
are kept to sort accents and other minor variants, probably by sorting small
capitals between uppercase and lowercase letters at the same collation
The simplest way to allow tailoring is to map small capitals as secondary
differences between uppercase and lowercase letters, and let a tailoring
remap them in one simple operation to quaternary level, where a 1-weight gap
has been left in quaternary collation weights to allow such remapping
without needing shifts of weights.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jan 30 2004 - 17:54:58 EST