From: John Hudson (email@example.com)
Date: Fri Jul 08 2005 - 01:48:38 CDT
Doug Ewell wrote:
> I thought Michael had answered the question: Greek CHI RHO (U+2627) and
> Coptic KHI RO (U+2CE9) are encoded separately because they belong to
> different scripts, sort of like Latin P and Greek Π and Cyrillic П.
> U+2627 is commonly identified as a symbol made up of two Greek letters,
> although it is not encoded in the Greek block.
This is my understanding also: once the decision had been made to disunify Greek and
Coptic, it made sense that this disunification would also apply to Chi Rho / Khi Ro.
Regarding the other Coptic question, I'm inclined to think that U+2CEA might be presented
either with or without the bar, and that this is a glyph design decision. Personally, I
would include both forms in a font, but would probably make the form with the bar the
default glyph simply because it seems much more common. The issue is a little clouded by
the separate encoding of the abbreviation bar, but there is at least a partial parallel in
the European ordinals, which may be written with or without a bar beneath them.
-- Tiro Typeworks www.tiro.com Vancouver, BC firstname.lastname@example.org Currently reading: Truth and tolerance, by Benedict XVI, Cardinal Ratzinger as was War (revised edition), by Gwynne Dyer God's secret agents, by Alice Hogge
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jul 08 2005 - 01:50:15 CDT