From: Philippe Verdy (email@example.com)
Date: Wed Jul 25 2007 - 02:57:39 CDT
David Starner wrote:
> > this is a very interesting question.
> > To put it short, this is somewhat incorrect to comprare "Mtavruli"
> > (capital) style of contemporary Georgian alphabet (Mkhedruli) to small
> > caps font style. And it is definitely wrong to look for solutions in
> > CSS and other typographical directions, as the two "styles" or scripts
> > (consider as you like) are different in shape and changing size of the
> > characters would not give us Mtavruli style from Mkedruli script, nor
> > the other way around.
> That does not follow; italics are different in shape from normal
> characters, and yet are treated as a typographical feature. There's no
> hard and fast rules, but if it's the same set of characters used in a
> different situation, like a header, it's typographic.
Very true. The situation here is exactly similar to the various italic,
bold/light, monospaced/serif/sansserif, condensed/wide,
simple/decorated/shadowed, black/reversed/boxed stylistic variants of the
same Latin script. All of them are implying some change in glyph
definitions, and none of them have required reencoding the Latin script in
As the author of the question suggested in the beginning, not having such
visual distinction in Georgian would have the same effect as not having bold
in Latin for titles. But I don't see why an unnecessary exception must be
made here for the modern unicameral Georgian script, given that there's no
change in the semantic and properties of the characters in Georgian titling.
Unicode does not encode style.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 25 2007 - 02:59:05 CDT