From: Don Osborn (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sat Mar 22 2003 - 13:30:33 EST
By way of background ... The African Reference Alphabet produced by an "expert meeting" on harmonization of transcriptions in Niamey in 1978 can be viewed at
This no longer seems to serve the role once intended for it (some character use has changed), so it would not be surprising if it did not figure in elaboration of the Unicode character repertoires, but is notable as part of a larger effort beginning really in Bamako in 1966 to agree on some standardization of orthographies and character use in African languages.
--- Peter_Constable@s... wrote:
> I've got a question about a couple of typeforms. The issue is whether they
> can be considered glyph variants of existing chars (U+00d0 and U+01b7), or
> whether they should be considered distinct characters.
> 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 proposeda 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?
[ . . . ]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Mar 22 2003 - 14:14:51 EST