Re: General Category of Latin subscript small letters

From: Asmus Freytag (
Date: Mon Jan 31 2011 - 14:41:27 CST

  • Next message: Kent Karlsson: "Re: General Category of Latin subscript small letters"


    Well, unless and until Ken Whistler weighs in, it's going to be
    difficult to answer question 1. But there's no requirement for you to
    wait before taking action.

    I think that there's one good benefit to marking these characters as Lm
    - it would further cement the notion that these are not styled versions
    of the regular letters.

    Also, it would reduce the number of Ll characters that do not have a
    case partner.

    Given the precedent cited by Ben Scarborough for the superscript
    characters, this would further regularize the assignment of the GC.

    A counter argument could be if some of these characters are never used
    to "modify" another letter. If so, that fact and it's importance (and
    therefore the importance of making the distinction in the gc) really
    ought to be discussed in the block descriptions and/or annotated in the
    character nameslist, it seems.

    As it stands, there's an apparent inconsistency with no apparent purpose.

    The best way to start on the path of a remedy for this situation would
    be if you were to file a proposal to the UTC to make these changes. That
    way, this can be discussed and resolved.

    Might as well add the list of Greek characters, submitted by Kent, for
    the record, so they can be resolved as well. (By resolved I here mean
    either have their GC changed or their documentation improved).

    Finally, you should cite the fact about the change for the superscript
    letters so all facts are before the UTC when it makes a decision.


    On 1/31/2011 5:22 AM, Karl Pentzlin wrote:
    > Below is a list of the Latin subscript small letters encoded in
    > Unicode 6.0, sorted alphabetically.
    > As shown, the letters have different General Category values:
    > The "older" ones have Ll, while the "newer" ones (mostly introduced
    > by N2788 and N3571, and code points fixed by L2/09-195) have Lm.
    > 1. Is there a specific reason that Ll was retained for the "older"
    > characters?
    > 2. Is it a good idea to propose to change Ll to Lm for the "older"
    > characters, just for uniformity?
    > 3. If additional Latin subscript small letters are proposed, is
    > Lm the preferred General Category value?
    > - Karl
    > 2090;LATIN SUBSCRIPT SMALL LETTER A;Lm;0;L;<sub> 0061;;;;N;;;;;
    > 2091;LATIN SUBSCRIPT SMALL LETTER E;Lm;0;L;<sub> 0065;;;;N;;;;;
    > 2095;LATIN SUBSCRIPT SMALL LETTER H;Lm;0;L;<sub> 0068;;;;N;;;;;
    > 1D62;LATIN SUBSCRIPT SMALL LETTER I;Ll;0;L;<sub> 0069;;;;N;;;;;
    > 2C7C;LATIN SUBSCRIPT SMALL LETTER J;Ll;0;L;<sub> 006A;;;;N;;;;;
    > 2096;LATIN SUBSCRIPT SMALL LETTER K;Lm;0;L;<sub> 006B;;;;N;;;;;
    > 2097;LATIN SUBSCRIPT SMALL LETTER L;Lm;0;L;<sub> 006C;;;;N;;;;;
    > 2098;LATIN SUBSCRIPT SMALL LETTER M;Lm;0;L;<sub> 006D;;;;N;;;;;
    > 2099;LATIN SUBSCRIPT SMALL LETTER N;Lm;0;L;<sub> 006E;;;;N;;;;;
    > 2092;LATIN SUBSCRIPT SMALL LETTER O;Lm;0;L;<sub> 006F;;;;N;;;;;
    > 209A;LATIN SUBSCRIPT SMALL LETTER P;Lm;0;L;<sub> 0070;;;;N;;;;;
    > 1D63;LATIN SUBSCRIPT SMALL LETTER R;Ll;0;L;<sub> 0072;;;;N;;;;;
    > 209B;LATIN SUBSCRIPT SMALL LETTER S;Lm;0;L;<sub> 0073;;;;N;;;;;
    > 209C;LATIN SUBSCRIPT SMALL LETTER T;Lm;0;L;<sub> 0074;;;;N;;;;;
    > 1D64;LATIN SUBSCRIPT SMALL LETTER U;Ll;0;L;<sub> 0075;;;;N;;;;;
    > 1D65;LATIN SUBSCRIPT SMALL LETTER V;Ll;0;L;<sub> 0076;;;;N;;;;;
    > 2093;LATIN SUBSCRIPT SMALL LETTER X;Lm;0;L;<sub> 0078;;;;N;;;;;
    > 2094;LATIN SUBSCRIPT SMALL LETTER SCHWA;Lm;0;L;<sub> 0259;;;;N;;;;;

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jan 31 2011 - 14:44:19 CST