From: Pim Blokland (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Fri Mar 07 2003 - 04:49:44 EST
John Hudson schreef:
> By the way, although Unicode calls it a cedilla, the correct form to use
> with G is the disconnected, 'under comma' form.
Ah yes, the cedillas; now these are ambiguous!
What is the "correct form" for cedillas under N, K, L, R, S and T? What
should these look like? The fonts I've seen disagree on all of them: some
have commas, others have "real" cedillas.
Since Unicode 3.0 came out with its new code points 0218..021B (S and T with
comma below), it has been my conviction that 015E..015F and 0162..0163
should look like S and T with real cedillas.
Am I wrong in that assumption? Even some fonts which have, for instance,
021A (T with comma below) defined, make 0162 (T with cedilla) look like a T
with an under comma.
Now I must admit, I haven't come across many texts which used Ts with
cedillas. Not in printed form, that is; the only ones I have seen were in
electronic form, where their appearance depends on the font used.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Mar 07 2003 - 05:38:00 EST