From: Michael Everson (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Fri Mar 05 2004 - 18:26:24 EST
At 18:20 -0500 2004-03-05, Ernest Cline wrote:
> > [Original Message]
>> From: Michael Everson <email@example.com>
>> I have a proposal for the i.t.a. in the works; I would not unify it
>> with this character, which has a specific use in American
>> English lexicography.
>But that specific use is the same as the use of the reversed t, h
>ligature that the i.t.a. uses and the proposed U+0246 (LATIN
>SMALL LIGATURE ITALIC TH) from N2656. While all three
>have different glyphs, they all represent a voiced th in English,
>and it is extremely unlikely that any document would use more
>than one such form.
So does thorn represent the same sound.
A unification between i.t.a. th and this particular th would just be
troublesome. What, do you want to see variation selectors to force
the Websters vs the i.t.a. glyph?
That would be a "silly" unification.
-- Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Mar 05 2004 - 19:02:34 EST