From: John Hudson (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Mon Aug 22 2005 - 17:35:34 CDT
Alexej Kryukov wrote:
> Well, in case of Ruby notation or any other superscript notation
> the superscript text belongs to a separate text flow. This is something
> quite different than letter-titlos, which represent an integral
> part of any Church Slavonic text and behave exactly like combining
> diacritical marks (in fact, they *are* combining marks).
If they are combining marks according to the Unicode definition, then of course they
should be encoded as such with appropriate properties. See my note in response to Michael
re. their positioning relative to words vs. relative to base letters.
You wrote: 'some of them are usually combined with titlo'. I'm interested to know whether
you would consider encoding these letter-titlos with the titlo mark or if you would expect
them to combine in a two-mark group with the existing titlo mark, e.g. BASE + LETTER-TITLO
+ TITLO. I suspect the latter, if the titlo mark is only 'usually' included, unless the
letter-titlo without the titlo mark is understood to be semantically identical to the
letter-titlo with the titlo mark, in which case the presence or absence of the mark might
be deemed a glyph display variation of a single character.
-- Tiro Typeworks www.tiro.com Vancouver, BC email@example.com Currently reading: Lords of the horizons, by Jason Goodwin Dining on stone, by Iain Sinclair
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Aug 22 2005 - 17:36:34 CDT