From: Peter Constable (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue Feb 03 2004 - 13:34:09 EST
> From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Of Peter Kirk
> It is interesting that SIL has seen the need to include precomposed
> combinations with U+0321 palatalized hook and U+0322 retroflex hook.
> Perhaps this is because these diacritics cannot be automatically
> combined with their base characters...
It is because there are problems with using 0321 and 0322 productively
that make it a bad idea in general. Use of 0321 and 0322, along with
overlays, should be considered not best practice. (I wouldn't object to
deprecation, but the users of the source standards whence these beasts
came might have objections.)
> "U+F25A LATIN SMALL LETTER HENG" is probably not intended as an h-ng
> combination but as h with a hook, probably a glyph variant of F222.
The name "heng" was used because that is a name that has been used in
literature for a while now. (Cf. Pullum & Ladusaw.) I'm not sure it
would be appropriate to consider it a glyph variant of F222. I didn't
get as much documentation on Judeo-Tat orthographies as I would have
liked, and so the relationship to F222 in those orthographies is still
unclear to me. But this character has recently appeared in a proposal
from China submitted to WG2, for usage in phonetic transcription.
Globalization Infrastructure and Font Technologies
Microsoft Windows Division
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Feb 03 2004 - 14:24:08 EST