Re: Que ligature

From: Wolfgang Schmidle (
Date: Wed Jun 08 2011 - 10:54:12 CDT

  • Next message: William_J_G Overington: "Re: Character Identity and Font Selection"

    Am 04.06.11 20:28, schrieb Andrew West:
    > On 4 June 2011 19:00, Leo Broukhis<> wrote:
    >> There exists a ligature for the Latin postpositional conjunction -que
    >> that looks like q with a smaller yogh glued to it, similar to but not
    >> exactly "qȝ":
    > See thread<>
    > Andrew

    By the way, we have decided to live a little less on the cutting edge.
    We try to approximate our texts with Unicode means, but we allow only
    things that can reasonably be expected to be displayed properly in a web
    browser. For example, we use combining characters even though many fonts
    still struggle with them, but we do not use codepoints in the Private
    Use Area, even if they are standard MUFI codepoints. (An example for
    "official Unicode" that we would not use are ideographic description
    sequences in Chinese text.)

    We use a <reg> tag for all additional information, e.g. for resolving
    abbreviations (and also for ideographic description sequences). On the
    other hand, we do not regularize e.g. "superfluous" renaissance accents
    in our texts and instead rely on our display system to create the word
    form that can be found in a dictionary.

    For example, we would write <reg norm="teq́ue" faithful="te́"
    type="simple">teq́ꝫ</reg>, which would display as
    teq́ꝫ in display mode "Original" (the user should have installed a font
    that contains "ꝫ")
    te́ in diplay mode "Original" with checked box "faithful" (the user
    should have installed a MUFI font and use it for displaying the text)
    teq́ue in display mode "Regularized" (this is the default mode)
    teque in display mode "Normalized" (which is created on the fly by the
    display system)

    And I think the character in question should receive an official
    codepoint. Better still, qꝫ and q́ꝫ should have separate codepoints. I am
    aware that this is against the official policy of no longer accepting
    ligatures. My argument would be that qꝫ and q́ꝫ are part of a limited
    list of characters contained in early letter cases. Yes, I choose to
    ignore problems of upright versus italics, "qꝫ" versus "q;", or what
    this would mean for the long and massively font-specific list of
    ligatures and abbreviations in early Greek letter cases. Still, it would
    be nice.


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jun 08 2011 - 10:58:26 CDT