From: Patrick Andries (email@example.com)
Date: Fri Jul 08 2005 - 09:38:02 CDT
Michael Everson a écrit :
> We're not going to do that. It would introduce inconsistency in
> representation of Coptic text.
Why do you say « we » when you express your opinion ? How do you know
what the WG2 will decide regarding a reference glyph change in the years
to come ?
> It may be the case that symbol is never found without an abbreviation
> bar. That does not mean that the abbreviation bar should be built into
Well, you then expose yourself to some people encoding in their text the
same symbol with and without the bar. I mean using two different Unicode
character sequences (SHIMA SHIMA alone, and SHIMA SIMA with the standard
contraction bar) to represent the same symbol. This is not a good idea,
I would say, when this can simply be treated, as John suggested, as a
glyph variant as is the case of the ordinal o (U+00BA) in Latin for
example (may or may not have an underlining bar)
>> I suspect it was included because the proposers did not know or did
>> not want to depend on newer technologies like OpenType which could
>> easily compose this abbreviation in all its forms (ligated or not,
>> flattened or not, with or without abbreviation bar) given the basic
>> Coptic letters and the abbreviation bar.
> That isn't true. We knew perfectly well. SHIMA SIMA may not be an
> obligatory ligature,
So why even encode it : treat it as a normal contraction, the
contraction bar can force the ligature depending on the font style
chosen. I really thing this is where the problem stems from. But let
bygones be bygones, the encoding cannot be undone.
> It may not "mean" anything without the bar. It is nevertheless an
> element of the writing system.
Well, by your construction. This ligature is in no way compulsory, not
found anywhere else apparently but this common abbreviation and it is
not a complete symbol : it lacks its bar on top as you admit yourself.
When have we last encoded parts of symbols that need to be completed
with an element found elsewhere ?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jul 08 2005 - 09:39:10 CDT