Back to Coptic (was: Demystifying the Politburo)

From: John Hudson (
Date: Fri Jul 08 2005 - 01:48:38 CDT

  • Next message: Erkki Kolehmainen: "Re: No Subject"

    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.

    John Hudson

    Tiro Typeworks
    Vancouver, BC
    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