Re: Glagolitic in Unicode 4.1

From: Страхиња Радић (
Date: Tue May 31 2005 - 14:14:56 CDT

  • Next message: Michael Everson: "Re: Glagolitic in Unicode 4.1"

    Дана 2005.05.23 22:17, Kenneth Whistler је написао:
    > The burden of proof at this point would be for demonstrating that
    > a digraphic representation is insufficient, so that a separate
    > Glagolitic digraph for this would need to be added to the standard.

            By using this kind of reasoning, we would end up asking why the heck
    was ``fi'' or ``ffi'' encoded when these two can be expressed with their
    corresponding atoms, or, more closer to what I asked, why the Cyrillic
    ``yeriy'' was encoded as a standalone character, when it could be happily
    represented with a soft sign + ``deseteric'' (dotless) i? And why there is no
    dotless i in Cyrillic? It is used in some Serbo-slavic texts from from the XIX

            And nobody answered my other questions:

            1) Why the variant characters were encoded? Ex: ``LATINATE MYSLITE'' is
    a variant of ``MYSLITE'', which should be expressed font-wise, NOT

            2) What does ``LATINATE'' mean and in what language?

            3) Why ``SHTAPIC'' and not ``PALOCHKA'' or ``STICK''? And could someone
    explain to me what is the use of this character?

            4) Why ``SMALL LETTER IOTATED SMALL YUS'' instead of ``SMALL LETTER
    IOTIFIED LITTLE YUS'', which in my opinion would be more compatible with the
    Cyrillic counterpart?

            Best regards,

    Because *freedom* matters!

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue May 31 2005 - 15:16:51 CDT