Re: CSUR Tonal

From: Doug Ewell (
Date: Sat Jul 31 2010 - 14:54:48 CDT

  • Next message: Mark Davis ☕: "Re: UTS#10 (collation) : request for a new "Separating" mode for variable weighting (3.2.2)"

    "Luke-Jr" <luke at dashjr dot org> wrote:

    > This isn't about them not looking *exactly* the same, it's about these
    > existing modifiers being inconsistent with each other in visibly
    > noticable ways. Nor are these characters mere styling that should
    > require rich-text (including changing fonts) to represent. Consider
    > the possibility that someone might wish to use Tonal units among
    > whatever existing use of these inconsistently-superscripted
    > characters.

    If you are claiming that the existing modifier-letter characters are
    completely unsuited to the purpose because of irreconcilable glyph
    differences, make some screen shots and upload them to a Web site and
    post the URL here. (Do not send the images directly to the list.) Then
    those of us who have been looking at glyphs and thinking about this
    unification/disunification thing for 10 or 15 years can see what we

    Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA |
    RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14 | ietf-languages @ is dot gd slash 2kf0s ­

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Jul 31 2010 - 15:00:45 CDT