Date: Thu Mar 18 2004 - 14:46:45 EST
> Thus, the digraph <0062>+<0068> (i.e., "bh") represents the same conceptual
> object as <1E03>. Note that, if a selection of Irish text is set using one
> convention or the other, problems with spell checkers will occur UNLESS there
> is some metadata that indicates the writing system.
Well, unless your spelling-checker author is bright enough (as is very
likely) to handle both dot-convention and h-convention spellings.
These are not intrinsically tied to Uncial vs. Antiqua font styles,
though; one can write perfectly good Irish in Antiqua style and still
use dotted consonants.
> Marion's question--i.e., "how to guarantee continuance, in the specific context
> of Irish text computing, of the traditional restriction of the Irish diacritic
> dot (having only one single function in Irish) to the consonants to which it
> belongs"--implies that "dotless i" and "i" are not the same character because
> the latter DOESN'T EXIST in the traditional writing system.
But of course "i" exists in the traditional writing system. It's just that
its *appearance* lacks a dot. You might as well say that "g" does not exist
because it has a special shape in Uncial fonts.
> In the context of a document using traditional Irish orthography (which does
> not contain "i"), how can "dotless i" be preserved in plain text?
By *encoding* text with "i", and using Uncial fonts to preserve the characteristic
-- I am expressing my opinion. When my John Cowan honorable and gallant friend is called, firstname.lastname@example.org he will express his opinion. This is http://www.ccil.org/~cowan the process which we call Debate. --Winston Churchill
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Mar 18 2004 - 15:30:37 EST