From: Michael Everson (
Date: Tue Sep 28 2004 - 14:03:39 CST

  • Next message: Rick Cameron: "RE: internationalization assumption"

    At 12:59 -0700 2004-09-28, Joe Becker \(Unicode\) wrote:
    > > I'm not going to stipulate that those giant hooks ARE descenders
    >You don't have to. I am telling you that these codes were assigned
    >to the extended pe variant that occurs in Abkhazian, and have always
    >been so annotated.

    The extended pe variant that I have seen in Abkhazian has the giant
    hook on it. That is a different diacritic deformation than the
    descender. If a pe with descender exists, it is not the same as a pe
    with the giant hook. Those are two different LETTERS. This (letter
    identity) is a different thing from "what is used in Abkhaz

    > > We have seen examples where hook and descender are distinct
    >If you have examples of two distinguished pe variants occurring
    >within the same Abkhazian text, then there is a problem.

    I don't know whether PE WITH DESCENDER needs to be encoded or not,
    but it is certainly not a glyph variant of PE WITH HOOK. That is the
    kind of overunification which I will never consider to be acceptable.

    Michael Everson * * Everson Typography *  *

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Sep 28 2004 - 14:06:01 CST