Re: Engmagate?

From: Philippe Verdy <>
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 17:22:45 +0100

No, this links only explains that variants are possible, expected, even
desirable, as long as they do not disrupt the languages with which these
variants are used os they cause confusion.
But before thinking about disunifying the ENG/eng pair for these variants,
we need to find convincing opposed pairs where such variants cause
misinterpretation of the encoded texts.

If these variants are separated only by their *preferred* letter form, this
is not enough to justify disunification. The article does not demonstrate
any case where words/sentences would be misinterpreted when reading them
with one form or the other. May be these forms are not those prefered, but
this is not really a problem (for now, until it is demonstrated).

So the issue can be "easily" solved by managing fonts with
language-sensitive letterforms. OpenType already has the necessary support
for it (this is the same issue between Simplified and Traditional Cjinese
letter forms). This means that for best rendering of text, we need language
tagging (outside of the encoded texts, in metadata, or in rich text formats
by embedding explicit language attributes, that renderers will consider to
select which letter form to render).

2013/12/12 Leo Broukhis <>

> Hasn't explained it
> once and for all?
> Leo
> On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 4:42 AM, <> wrote:
>> FWIW, a blog post prompted by discussions in the wake of a DejaVu font
>> use of N-form over n-form capital ŋ ("eng" or "engma"):
>> "The 'eng' times for unified capital ŋ?"
>> It's not a new issue, but was leaving the two main forms of capital eng
>> as variants of one character the best course of action? In any event, it's
>> probably more complex to disunify now (if that were to be decided) than it
>> would have been, say, 10-12 years ago.
>> Don Osborn
>> Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
Received on Thu Dec 12 2013 - 10:24:40 CST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Thu Dec 12 2013 - 10:24:40 CST