Date: Tue Jul 05 2005 - 10:20:03 CDT
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Everson" <email@example.com>
Thank you, Michael Everson, for your work in the Coptic proposal.
> Because the use of the contraction bar is productive, it was judged
> inappropriate to encode the COIS ligature with a precomposed bar.
> U+0503 is the abbreviation bar.
I'm not too sure I understand. Let's serialize my questions:
1) You mean a bar must always be added to U+2CEA to write COIS...?
2) If so, what does U+2CEA without a bar mean? To me, without an abbreviation bar, this symbol simply also means "Lord" but in a rarer font style since the "cs" are only ligated in this word/symbol as a far as I know.
> KHI RHO is the monogram made of Coptic letters. CHI RHO is the
> monogram made out of Greek letters. Both are Christian symbols,
> indeed refer to the same thing in two different scripts.
But aren't these simply style variants? The CHI RO is not assigned to a particular script in Unicode, AFAIK. And both really look very very similar. Why is script origin important in the case of symbols? Both refer to the same thing, both look the same, both behave typographical in the same way...
-- St Elias Coptic Community
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jul 05 2005 - 10:21:44 CDT