Re: Historical Cyrillic in Unicode

From: John Hudson (
Date: Mon Aug 22 2005 - 17:35:34 CDT

  • Next message: Kenneth Whistler: "Re: 28th IUC paper - Tamil Unicode New"

    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.

    John Hudson

    Tiro Typeworks
    Vancouver, BC
    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