Re: Historical Cyrillic in Unicode

From: Alexej Kryukov (
Date: Wed Aug 24 2005 - 14:43:17 CDT

  • Next message: Michael Everson: "Re: Unicode TTF question"

    On Tuesday 23 August 2005 02:35, John Hudson wrote:
    > 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.

    The second variant seems to be preferrable according to the current
    Unicode policy, but, on the other hand, all letter-titlos may be
    separated to 2 groups: those always combined with a contraction
    mark (i. e. titlo) and those always used by itself (e. g. because
    the letter itself looks similar to a contraction mark).
    If there are any exceptions, they are rare: I am not aware of any
    superscript letter which can be used both in combination with titlo
    and without it (but I can ask in the CS community).

    So requiring to always represent some letter-titlos as two-mark
    groups may be just a redundant complication.

    Alexej Kryukov <akrioukov at newmail dot ru>
    Moscow State University
    Historical Faculty

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Aug 24 2005 - 14:43:57 CDT