Re: Writing Tatar using the Latin script; new characters to encode?

From: Doug Ewell (
Date: Wed May 12 2004 - 00:54:50 CDT

  • Next message: Doug Ewell: "Disunifying CJK (was: Re: Everson-bashing)"

    Kenneth Whistler <kenw at sybase dot com> wrote:

    > And Eki should be notified that the statement on the site about
    > the barred o's is incorrect.

    They've got an interesting little site there, with lots of information
    pertaining to both Unicode and 8-bit encodings, but some misinformation
    as well. In particular, I wish they wouldn't perpetuate the myth that
    certain letters-with-diacritic "aren't encoded" when they just need to
    be composed. Unexplained blanket statements like:

    "Yoruba precomposed characters were rejected by the Unicode Technical
    Committee in 1996."

    give the wrong impression altogether.

    >> 3. The case pair n with descender is definitely not encoded, and from
    >> my memory of the discussion of ghe with descender, we would want to
    >> encode them as separate characters (rather than with combining
    >> descenders on "n").
    > Yes. But why, oh why, do people do this to themselves, instead of
    > just making use of the existing Latin letters for this: 014A/014B ?
    > This is another recipe to wait years for their orthography to be
    > supported by conventional software.


    -Doug Ewell
     Fullerton, California

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed May 12 2004 - 00:56:56 CDT