From: Patrick Andries (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue Feb 15 2005 - 18:28:15 CST
Peter Kirk a écrit :
> On 15/02/2005 18:34, Michael Everson wrote:
>> At 13:10 -0500 2005-02-15, Patrick Andries wrote:
>>>> But there are non-casing characters in casing scripts, e.g.
>>>> Cyrillic palochka, apostrophes etc used as letters in some scripts,
>>>> and arguably German sharp S.
>>> Interesting question. I wonder if there a lot more unicameral
>>> letters in bicameral scripts...
>> I have discovered palochka to have regular case in handwriting.
>> I think the default state is "casing" apart from letters where it
>> really isn't possible or sensible to try to make casing letterforms
>> for them. Why? Because evidence shows, again and again, people
>> innovate case where it wasn't there originally.
Well, you know my opinion : the best people to decide what is sensible,
of course, are the people using these scripts (more delicate for dead
scripts). I don't think letters should be invented before the users of
the script do so and we then go through the normal process (real need, a
single author's idiosyncratic style, potential impact on legacy, etc.)
> You have also shown casing in an apostrophe-like letter used in
> Egyptian transliteration.
> So are we likely to see proposals for lower case palochka, upper case
> sharp S etc? I think a proposal for the latter has been presented to
> WG2, but what happened to it?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Feb 15 2005 - 18:29:23 CST