Re: Glagolitic in Unicode 4.1

From: Doug Ewell (
Date: Tue May 31 2005 - 23:07:36 CDT

Hans Aberg <haberg at math dot su dot se> wrote:

>> ... why the heck
>> was ``fi'' or ``ffi'' encoded when these two can be expressed with
>> their corresponding atoms, ...
> One other way to view this (than backwards
> compatibility with existing character sets), is
> that the Unicode abstract character set contains
> more than one type of abstract characters. With
> modern computing techniques, the most important
> type to add is the semantic character, which
> provides proper atomic linguistic semantic units.
> The characters above, are glyphs, used to
> simplify rendering.

The characters above were added for backward compatibility with existing
character sets. This is known and undisputed, and is not due to
alternative interpretations of the character-glyph model.

Doug Ewell
Fullerton, California

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue May 31 2005 - 23:09:20 CDT