Re: Glagolitic in Unicode 4.1

From: Hans Aberg (
Date: Wed Jun 01 2005 - 08:43:53 CDT

  • Next message: Doug Ewell: "Re: Ligatures fi and ffi (was: Re: Glagolitic in Unicode 4.1)"

    At 21:07 -0700 2005/05/31, Doug Ewell wrote:
    >Hans Aberg <haberg at math dot su dot se> wrote:
    >>> ... why the heck
    >>> was ``fi'' or ``ffi'' encoded when these two can be expressed with
    >>> their corresponding atoms, ...
    >> One other way to view this (than backwards
    >> compatibility with existing character sets), is
    >> that the Unicode abstract character set contains
    >> more than one type of abstract characters. With
    >> modern computing techniques, the most important
    >> type to add is the semantic character, which
    >> provides proper atomic linguistic semantic units.
    >> The characters above, are glyphs, used to
    >> simplify rendering.
    >The characters above were added for backward compatibility with existing
    >character sets. This is known and undisputed, and is not due to
    >alternative interpretations of the character-glyph model.

    Implicit in my statement is that one can do such an interpretation if
    one wants Unicode to move forward with respect to this issue.

       Hans Aberg

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jun 01 2005 - 08:44:59 CDT