From: Michael Everson (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue Sep 28 2004 - 14:03:39 CST
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 * * http://www.evertype.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Sep 28 2004 - 14:06:01 CST