From: Apostolos Syropoulos (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Thu Feb 18 2010 - 02:20:10 CST
2010/2/18 Arno Schmitt <email@example.com>
> On 17.02.2010 17:24 Robert Abel wrote:
> > Unicode encodes scripts, yet you propose to encode *sounds*
> > that would then be, depending on font, mapped to *different* characters,
> This made me wonder why
> U+0386 is encoded as U+1FBB as well
> ... (seven capital vowel letters)
> U+038F is encoded as U+1FFB,
> U+0390 as U+1FD3 as well,
> U+03CC as U+1F79 as well
> Sorry, I know this is Bnicode prehistory.
> But please give me a short answer or direct
> me to an old document/discussion/FAQ
Indeed, this is something I was wondering about for a long time.
I was thinking that they wanted to have two "autonomous" blocks:
one for modern monotonic and one for polytonic. But then they should
have included all the unaccented letters. On the other hand, some
use different symbols for tonos and oxia and maybe this is the real reason.
-- Apostolos Syropoulos 366, 28th October Str.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Feb 18 2010 - 02:23:30 CST