John Hudson schrieb:
> At 12:45 PM 15-10-99 -0700, Martin Kotulla wrote:
>
> >There are a bunch of Roman letters that are designed either with a
> >cedilla or a comma below, like:
> >
> >* 0122 LATIN CAPITAL LETTER G CEDILLA
> >* 0123 LATIN SMALL LETTER G CEDILLA
> >
> >* 0136 LATIN CAPITAL LETTER K CEDILLA
> >* 0137 LATIN SMALL LETTER K CEDILLA
> >
> >* 013B LATIN CAPITAL LETTER L CEDILLA
> >* 013C LATIN SMALL LETTER L CEDILLA
> >
> >* 0145 LATIN CAPITAL LETTER N CEDILLA
> >* 0146 LATIN SMALL LETTER N CEDILLA
> >
> >* 0156 LATIN CAPITAL LETTER R CEDILLA
> >* 0157 LATIN SMALL LETTER R CEDILLA
> >
> >(The PostScript names for those however are Gcommaaccent, gcommaaccent
> >etc. according to Adobe.)
>
> All these diacritics should take the comma accent form _not_ the cedilla
> form (except where the design of the cedilla is such that it may serve as
> either accent -- i.e. an unattached cedilla with a shallow curve). These
> characters are misnamed in Unicode due to an early failure to distinguish
> between the two accent marks.
>
> John Hudson
>
> Tiro Typeworks
> Vancouver, BC
> www.tiro.com
> tiro@tiro.com
Thanks. So I take it that there are *no* [GgKkLlNnRr]cedillas anywhere in the
world and that the only characters with cedillas are Ccedilla, ccedilla,
Scedilla and scedilla. Right?
What about Tcedilla vs. Tcedillaaccent? Adobe is doing some double-mapping
concerning these characters, as you can see here:
http://partners.adobe.com/asn/developer/typeforum/unicodegn.html
(scroll down to section 4.c. Double-mappings)
Do these really exist as separate characters?
-Martin
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:53 EDT