From: Peter Constable (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Fri Mar 05 2004 - 18:47:56 EST
> From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Of Ernest Cline
> 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.
By that logic, both the proposed 0246 and your i.t.a. ligature can be
unified with U+00F0, which is the character used in the IPA convention
to represent a voiced th in English.
Problem is, it's not good logic.
Unicode encodes characters, not orthographic functions. There may be a
problem with unnecessary proliferation of inconsistent conventions for
representing a particular phoneme of a given language (one dictionary
does this while another does that), but that is not a problem that
should be solved by unifying the different graphic representation into a
single character that is defined in terms of an orthographic function.
Globalization Infrastructure and Font Technologies
Microsoft Windows Division
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Mar 05 2004 - 19:29:28 EST