From: Michael Everson (email@example.com)
Date: Fri Sep 09 2005 - 07:47:30 CDT
At 19:13 -0700 2005-09-08, Kenneth Whistler wrote:
>As the text says: "In very early Icel. MSS. we find the old Latin
>form d, ..." I'd say what you are looking at is simply an uncial d
>from an old manuscript.
>Oh, and yes, it *is* permissible to print dictionaries using more
>than one font. ;-)
Nevertheless, Medievalists treat many of these kinds of things as
meaningfully distinct, hence the draft proposal
http://std.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc2/wg2/docs/n2957.pdf -- which doubtless
contains characters Ken won't like, but which are used only by
scholars (in standardized editing traditions).
>No, I don't think so, although you could use that Claudian letter
>to try to represent this. This is a typographic representation of
>one (of a very large number) of manuscript abbreviations.
Yes, and it seems prudent to unify the Claudian letter with this
>Manuscript paleography is generally considered beyond the scope
>of what has to be represented in plain text.
Manuscript paleography is different from what the medievalists are
proposing, though of course the many pages of examples are not yet in
the draft, so you'll just have to take my word for it till it's
> > On the same page, top of the right column, there are two runes that
>> are not found in the 16A0 block: the mirrored "D" variant on dagaz
>> (perhaps just a glyph variant of U+16DE?) and the right-pointing
>> triangle for "Latin d".
>More paleography, this time of the very variable forms of runes.
That's not palaeography per se, it's just example glyphs.
>Even the dictionary here throws up its hands, gives up on metal
>type design and just "pastes" in pictures in this case.
Now, now, Ken, this is not indicative of what we should or will do
now that we have the Universal Character Set.
-- Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Sep 09 2005 - 07:50:08 CDT