Re: Basic Latin

From: Jukka K. Korpela <>
Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2013 23:25:26 +0200

2013-01-02 8:35, Asmus Freytag wrote:

> On 1/1/2013 3:53 PM, Naena Guru wrote:
>> (By the way, Unicode is quietly suppressing Basic Latin block by
>> removing it from the Latin group at top of the code block page
>> ( and hiding it under different names
>> in the lower part of the page.)
> I don't know what you mean here, you get it by clicking on the header
> "Latin" at the very top of the Latin group. The word "basic" was deemed
> redundant in the index (a choice that you can argue about forever - if
> space wasn't at a premium on that page, it might have been an easy
> decision to add an alias).

I think what Naena Guru means is that in the charts, the boldface items
are not just headings for non-bold texts under them (as I would presume
from the typographic appearance), but also links to basic blocks of scripts.

Then again, Latin is no different from Cyrillic, Greek, or Arabic, for
example, in this respect. In an apparent attempt to save space, the
script names are also links to basic blocks of characters for the
scripts. This would not be my cup of tea, but I can well understand the
reasoning behind this. Using “Basic Latin” etc. as lower-level items
would have been more logical here, but not necessarily more practical.

Received on Wed Jan 02 2013 - 15:27:49 CST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Wed Jan 02 2013 - 15:27:50 CST