Re: U+00D0, U+01b7 -- variants or distinct chars?

From: John Hudson (
Date: Tue Mar 18 2003 - 11:09:34 EST

  • Next message: Mark Davis: "Re: Custom fonts (was: Tolkien wanta-be)"

    At 02:25 AM 3/18/2003, Pim Blokland wrote:

    >On the other hand, it has been done! There are occasions on which
    >new codepoints were created for characters that were basically glyph
    >variants. The greek letter koppa springs to mind: there are two
    >glyph variants for this letter, and when it turned out font
    >designers weren't sure how it should look, new codepoints were
    >introduced for the "archaic" koppa, in order to show both variants
    >and avoid confusion.

    The two 'glyph variants' of the archaic koppa have very different semantic
    values: one is used as a letter and one is used in a numeric context. I
    think this supports the view that they should, in fact, be considered as
    separate characters, since both forms may be used in a document and it may
    be necessary, even in plain text, to distinguish them.

    John Hudson

    Tiro Typeworks
    Vancouver, BC

    Anyone who has both children and house pets has
    surely noticed that the children exposed to language
    will develop language, in turn, whereas the house
    pets will not. - Stephen Pinker

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Mar 18 2003 - 11:40:44 EST