From: John Cowan (email@example.com)
Date: Tue Jul 13 2004 - 14:25:47 CDT
Doug Ewell scripsit:
> CGJ + COMBINING DIAERESIS is a hack, but then again the need to draw a
> distinction between the exact same combining mark used for two different
> phonetic purposes is a bit of a hack too.
However, there used to be typographical distinctions in certain German
fonts between umlaut and diaeresis: see the examples on p. 15 of Victor
Gaultney's paper "Problems of diacritic design for Latin script text
faces" at http://www.sil.org/~gaultney/ProbsOfDiacDesignLowRes.pdf
(warning: 1.4M), particularly Figure 39.
> The alternative proposed by DIN, creating a new COMBINING UMLAUT
> character, would have caused *unprecedented and catastrophic*
> equivalence and normalization problems.
-- "Take two turkeys, one goose, four John Cowan cabbages, but no duck, and mix them http://www.ccil.org/~cowan together. After one taste, you'll duck firstname.lastname@example.org soup the rest of your life." http://www.reutershealth.com --Groucho
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jul 13 2004 - 14:26:43 CDT