From: Ernest Cline (email@example.com)
Date: Fri Mar 05 2004 - 21:04:16 EST
> [Original Message]
> From: Peter Constable <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> > From: Ernest Cline
> > TH WITH STRIKETHROUGH
> > ITALIC TH LIGATED BY HOOK
> > PLAIN TH LIGATED BY CROSSBAR
> > three separate glyphic representations of the same character
> > LEXICOGRAPHIC VOICED TH
> No; three separate character representations of the same
> orthographic function.
> > Now if one were to take a dictionary that used any one of those
> > three forms mentioned above and consistently replaced one
> > glyph with another throughout the dictionary, would there truly
> > be any difference in the text?
> Me thinks the editorial staff of a given dictionary publisher that
> needs to maintain it's conventions across different editions
> will certainly say "yes".
Then presumably they will use the same font (or set of fonts
with similar representation of the character) to produce their
dictionaries. Your argument presumes that its appearance
as needed by the editors of one particular set of dictionaries
is a distinction that should be significant to Unicode.
Why should it be?
Evidence that a character that meets my description
for LEXICOGRAPHIC TH is used by multiple sources
is quite clear, but a reader of a dictionary using any
of the three glyphic variants of such a character would
find them equally understandable, and would be under
no expectation to find them used in other dictionaries
by other publishers or even by the same publisher.
Where is the evidence that would justify such a specific
glyph as that which would fall under the name
TH WITH STRIKETHROUGH in the BMP instead of
it being a Private Use character?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Mar 05 2004 - 21:31:48 EST