From: Karl Pentzlin (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue Jan 10 2006 - 06:45:36 CST
Am Dienstag, 10. Januar 2006 um 09:59 schrieb Kent Karlsson:
KK> An "e" (or "E", that would be, just barely, within allowable variability)
KK> above (or slightly "inside") a letter be encoded as U+0364,
KK> COMBINING LATIN SMALL LETTER E, NOT as U+0308.
KK> U+0308, COMBINING DIAERESIS, should always be imaged as
It depends on culture and context.
In German decorative texts (e.g. which have connotations like "old"
or "medieval"), the "e above" is definitely a font variant of the
In scientific German text (e.g. medievalist literature) this is not true.
In Swedish decorative text this also is not true, I presume.
Likewise, a letter resembling U+0190 LATIN CAPITAL LETTER OPEN E
is a font variant of U+0045 LATIN CAPITAL LETTER E when occurring
in German decorative text. Encoding it U+0190 in this context
is clearly an error.
KK> The same goes for long s: it should always be encoded as 017F, LATIN
KK> SMALL LETTER LONG S, NOT as 0073, LATIN SMALL LETTER S. The latter
KK> should always be imaged as "round-s-like", regardless of font.
Also, it depends on culture and context.
In decorative English text, where you can substitute every small s
by a long s, the long s may be viewed as a font variant.
This is not possible for German, where there are rules which require
round s e.g. as syllabe finals even when the font uses the long s.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jan 10 2006 - 06:47:15 CST