From: Peter_Constable@sil.org
Date: Tue Mar 18 2003 - 17:04:42 EST
Anto'nio Martins-Tuva'lkin wrote on 03/18/2003 09:46:30 AM:
> > U+00D0: The glyph that appears in the code charts for U+00D0 is shown
> > in LtnCapEth_DStrk.gif. Now, the African Reference Alphabet document
> > that was produced at a conference in Niamey in 1978 proposed a small
> > letter that looks like U+00F0 LATIN SMALL LETTER ETH, but the capital
> > counterpart is like the glyph shown in LtnCapEthLrgSqLC.gif. This is
> > quite different in appearance from the representative glyph for
> > U+00D0. Should this be considered a glyph variant of U+00D0, or should
> > it be considered a distinct character?
>
> I guess it is yes a glyph variant but rather for U+0189.
Eh? No, the only thing it could be a glyph variant of is U+00D0. What would
make you think to make it a variant of 0189?
- Peter
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Constable
Non-Roman Script Initiative, SIL International
7500 W. Camp Wisdom Rd., Dallas, TX 75236, USA
Tel: +1 972 708 7485
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Mar 18 2003 - 17:49:41 EST