From: Mark Davis (email@example.com)
Date: Fri Dec 28 2007 - 16:09:47 CST
No, it isn't complete. Take a look at UTRs 36 and 39, especially the data in
On Dec 27, 2007 12:21 AM, Karl Pentzlin <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> There are some Latin characters which look the same (at least very
> similar, dependent of the font) but are encoded differently, all because
> they are
> paired with a character of the other case which are clearly different.
> Thus, the letter to be used cannot derived from its visual appearance
> but its context must be taken into account (a problem e.g. when designing
> the labelling on a keyboard).
> 1.) Ð U+00D0 LATIN CAPITAL LETTER ETH, lower case is:
> ð U+00F0 LATIN SMALL LETTER ETH
> Đ U+0110 LATIN CAPITAL LETTER D WITH STROKE, lower case is:
> đ U+0111 LATIN SMALL LETTER D WITH STROKE
> Ɖ U+0189 LATIN CAPITAL LETTER AFRICAN D, lower case is:
> ɖ U+0256 LATIN SMALL LETTER D WITH TAIL
> 2.) ə U+0259 LATIN SMALL LETTER SCHWA, upper case is:
> Ə U+018F LATIN CAPITAL LETTER SCHWA
> ǝ U+01DD LATIN SMALL LETTER TURNED E, upper case is:
> Ǝ U+018E LATIN CAPITAL LETTER REVERSED E
> 3.) Ɂ U+0241 LATIN CAPITAL LETTER GLOTTAL STOP, lower case is:
> ɂ U+0242 LATIN SMALL LETTER GLOTTAL STOP
> ʔ U+0294 LATIN LETTER GLOTTAL STOP, which is caseless.
> Is this list complete (besides digraphs etc.)?
> - Karl Pentzlin
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Dec 28 2007 - 16:12:27 CST