From: Michael Everson (email@example.com)
Date: Tue May 17 2005 - 09:17:30 CDT
At 14:18 -0700 2005-05-16, Kenneth Whistler wrote:
>The reason why Michael Everson attempted to focus on the question of
>what evidence might be brought to bear on the need to encode
>additional characters for Glagolitic is that that falls in the realm
>of the *possible*, for future changes.
Just so. My interest is to make sure that the Universal Character Set
contains everything it needs to. So I tend to be concerned with
>I agree that it might have been possible to make some choices that
>resulted in a somewhat more consistent adaptation for the Unicode
>names of Glagolitic characters, but given the artificial constraints
>of using only A-Z in character names, the Unicode character names
>can't generally be relied on as
I agree too. For what it is worth, our Slavicist experts, and our
linguistic experts in SC2 and UTC all approved the names, however
imperfect they may be.
>If your concern is primarily how to correctly translate "INITIAL"
>into French for the French name of U+2C0A, my suggestion would be to
>let yourself be guided by your scholarship, unless Michael has any
>other insights into the origin of the name.
Both characters are natively called "izhe". We named one of them
"initial izhe" because it tends to be used in initial position.
-- Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue May 17 2005 - 09:22:04 CDT