From: Peter Constable (email@example.com)
Date: Wed May 12 2004 - 11:03:14 CDT
>>2. The case pair for barred o is encoded (U+019F and U+0275), and it
seems that their confusion comes from less-than-perfect but annotated
name for U+019F, and from the usage remark "African". Can we
authoritatively tell them that those two characters are the ones they
>>Can we add a "Tatar" usage remark to both?
That can certainly be done (assuming the info on Tatar is correct), and
may be helpful.
>>3. The case pair n with descender is definitely not encoded, and from
memory of the discussion of ghe with descender, we would want to encode
them as separate characters (rather than with combining descenders on
>>Is anybody working on that proposal?
The ghe with descender is already approved by UTC and in the PDAM for
If you look in the documentation on SIL's usage of the PUA
PUA) you'll find that I had been given evidence for Latin H/h with
descender in Judeo-Tat (not related to Tatar). I had anticipated
preparing a proposal for that and the other orthographic characters in
SIL's PUA usage, but have not yet had opportunity to do so. The
n-descender was not among the thing that were added to SIL's PUA usage,
Globalization Infrastructure and Font Technologies
Microsoft Windows Division
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed May 12 2004 - 11:04:49 CDT