Re: Corrections to Glagolitic

From: Michael Everson (
Date: Tue May 17 2005 - 09:17:30 CDT

  • Next message: Peter Kirk: "Re: ASCII and Unicode lifespan"

    At 14:18 -0700 2005-05-16, Kenneth Whistler wrote:

    >The reason why Michael Everson attempted to focus on the question of
    >what evidence might be brought to bear on the need to encode
    >additional characters for Glagolitic is that that falls in the realm
    >of the *possible*, for future changes.

    Just so. My interest is to make sure that the Universal Character Set
    contains everything it needs to. So I tend to be concerned with
    actionable proposals.

    >I agree that it might have been possible to make some choices that
    >resulted in a somewhat more consistent adaptation for the Unicode
    >names of Glagolitic characters, but given the artificial constraints
    >of using only A-Z in character names, the Unicode character names
    >can't generally be relied on as
    >transliterations, anyway.

    I agree too. For what it is worth, our Slavicist experts, and our
    linguistic experts in SC2 and UTC all approved the names, however
    imperfect they may be.

    >If your concern is primarily how to correctly translate "INITIAL"
    >into French for the French name of U+2C0A, my suggestion would be to
    >let yourself be guided by your scholarship, unless Michael has any
    >other insights into the origin of the name.

    Both characters are natively called "izhe". We named one of them
    "initial izhe" because it tends to be used in initial position.

    Michael Everson * * Everson Typography *  *

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue May 17 2005 - 09:22:04 CDT