Re: 'lower case a' and 'script a' in unicode

From: Antoine Leca (
Date: Tue Mar 22 2005 - 09:13:37 CST

  • Next message: Doug Ewell: "Re: 'lower case a' and 'script a' in unicode"

    Alec Coupe wrote:
    > For non-linguists, the difference is demonstrated by the Australian
    > English versus the southern British English pronunciation of 'a' in
    > 'father'.

    I am sorry to point out that even if I am not a linguist, your explanation
    above shed no light.
    However, I happen to be aware of the difference beforehand (the French
    language also have the distinction, even if it is fading away; and I
    happened to have learned IPA). But I am sure very few people around me can
    grasp it.

    > while 'script a' represents Cardinal Vowel 5

    I guess this character could be encoded U+0251.

    > why 'lower case a' is converted to 'script a' when it is
    > italicized [...]

    To just stick to Helvetica should solve this problem.

    > when it is italicized in unicode

    "in unicode" here makes no sense to me. Same for "makes unicode a [...] font

    > publishers require [...] italic face

    ... so they refuse oblique ones? Look strange to me.


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Mar 22 2005 - 09:15:32 CST