From: John Hudson (tiro@tiro.com)
Date: Tue Dec 30 2003 - 13:44:23 EST
At 03:34 PM 12/28/2003, Peter Kirk wrote:
>It is very interesting to me that there does seem to have been a glyph
>distinction (though a very subtle one) between sin and shin, in the
>"serech" example
>(http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il/orion/programs/Altman/serech.jpg) of what is
>undoubtedly (in Unicode terms) Hebrew script. If this distinction can be
>verified a case can be made for encoding a separate HEBREW LETTER SIN,
>equivalent to shin with sin dot. But it is difficult to verify this when
>three scribes within the same document make the distinction in three
>different ways.
Even if it were verified, it isn't a good case for encoding a separate
character *equivalent* to a combination of two existing characters: that's
a glyph variant ligature.
John Hudson
Tiro Typeworks www.tiro.com
Vancouver, BC tiro@tiro.com
What was venerated as style was nothing more than
an imperfection or flaw that revealed the guilty hand.
- Orhan Pamuk, _My name is red_
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Dec 30 2003 - 14:39:29 EST
