From: Alexej Kryukov (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Wed Aug 24 2005 - 14:43:17 CDT
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.
-- Regards, 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