From: Ernest Cline (email@example.com)
Date: Sat Mar 06 2004 - 19:20:45 EST
> [Original Message]
> From: Peter Kirk <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> On 06/03/2004 10:31, Doug Ewell wrote:
> >Peter Kirk <peterkirk at qaya dot org> wrote:
> >>Anyway, the character "has well defined user community / usage", the
> >>users of the dictionary in question. It is not clear that "user"
> >>implies those who write the character, or only those who read it.
> >>Many historical characters have been accepted for Unicode which are
> >>not regularly written, except in copying old texts, but are still
> >>regularly read.
> >This implies that the requirement for "interchange" of the proposed
> >character is no longer in effect, or at least seriously weakened. I'm
> >not sure if that's the case.
> Well, if the publishers of this dictionary prepare an on-line edition
> and put it on the web, does that count as "interchange"? Or is
> "interchange" required to be bidirectional? This is a general principle
> which affects words used in ancient texts as well as cases like this one.
There are several on-line dictionaries available now. A quick
examination found six different ways of representing the sound
of voiced th.
1) Italicize "th"
2) Underline "th"
3) Use "dh"
4) Use the eth "ð" but not the full IPA. (Eth is in Latin-1.)
5) Use "[|th]"
6) Provide a audio file for the word.
Do we really want to encode a particular publisher's markup as
a character in Unicode? Has anyone asked the editors of those
dictionaries whether they desire this character to be in Unicode?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Mar 06 2004 - 19:57:31 EST