On Thu, 23 Mar 2017 11:23:27 +0100
Otto Stolz <otto.stolz_at_uni-konstanz.de> wrote:
> Same issue as with German sharp S: The blackletter »ß« derives from an
> ſ-z ligature (thence its German name »Eszet«), whilst the Roman type
> »ß« derives from an ſ-s ligature. Still, we encode both variants as
> identical letters. I’ve got a print from 1739 with legends in both
> German (blackletter) and French (Roman italics), comprising both types
> of ligatures in one single document.
There's another, lesser German analogy. If I understand correctly, in
some styles the diaeresis and umlaut marks may be distinguished
visually. While it is permissible to use CGJ to mark the difference,
the TUS claims (TUS 9.0 p833, in Section 23.2) that CGJ does not affect
rendering, except for the direct effect of blocking canonical
reordering. (This does appear to be in contrast to its seemingly
archaic effect in inhibiting line-breaking.)
However, combining marks are, by policy, unified more readily than
letters.
Richard.
Received on Thu Mar 23 2017 - 06:22:08 CDT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Thu Mar 23 2017 - 06:22:09 CDT