From: Kent Karlsson (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue Jan 10 2006 - 02:59:55 CST
John Hudson wrote:
> Anto'nio Martins-Tuva'lkin wrote:
> > Umlaut as "E" above in this 1978 mediaeval-themed Austrian postage
> > < http://www.apilch.2in.de/briefmark17.htm >.
> This is just a glyph variant of U+00D6 and would decompose to
> U+004F U+0308. There is a
And I still REALLY STRONGLY dislike this too liberal interpretation of
An "e" (or "E", that would be, just barely, within allowable
above (or slightly "inside") a letter be encoded as U+0364,
COMBINING LATIN SMALL LETTER E, NOT as U+0308.
U+0308, COMBINING DIAERESIS, should always be imaged as
The same goes for long s: it should always be encoded as 017F, LATIN
SMALL LETTER LONG S, NOT as 0073, LATIN SMALL LETTER S. The latter
should always be imaged as "round-s-like", regardless of font.
> long established tradition of writing the German umlaut as a
> small E in display lettering
> and typography, since before use of the teo dots the umlauted
> vowel was indicated by
> addition of an e, either after or above. Sometimes the E is
> above the letter as in this
> Austrian stamp example, other times it may be within the letter.
You're correct in that what is now encoded as COMBINING LATIN SMALL
LETTER E is the historical origin of what is now encoded as COMBINING
DIAERESIS. That does NOT mean that a small (or cap.) e above is an
acceptable glyph variant of a diaeresis. Just as: even though C is the
historic origin of G, G is not an acceptable glyph variant of C (and
Likewise for V and U. Or would you encode the V in that stamp sample as
I do hope not.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jan 10 2006 - 03:13:52 CST