Re: Engmagate?

In the case of ɖ vs ð vs đ, there are three different letters, as follows
from their names, that happen to have identical capital glyphs (those
you've mentioned plus U+0110 LATIN CAPITAL LETTER D WITH STROKE).

Speaking of đ, "an alternate glyph with the stroke through the bowl is used
in Americanist orthographies" without any [loud] cries about disunification.

If N-Eng and n-Eng are disunified but small engs aren't (should they?), who
keeps the "default" "toupper" conversion?

> And while they are at it, I wouldn't refuse if they squared the circle.

That's exactly right.

Leo

On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 2:52 PM, Asmus Freytag <asmusf_at_ix.netcom.com> wrote:

> On 12/12/2013 2:25 PM, Leo Broukhis wrote:
>
> Hmmm... As a person with Russian as the first language I can assure you
> that from any literate Russian-speaking person's perspective italic ū is an
> unacceptable and *WRONG* representation of п (because in Russian, unlike
> Serbian, there is й). Should we bother disunifying?
>
>
> This example adds the issue of font style - because for styles other than
> italic, the issue doesn't exist. I would take that as a stronger indication
> that this is an issue that belongs in glyph space.
>
>
> The fact that the lowercase letter is the same in both cases proves that
> the difference between N-Eng and n-Eng is purely stylistic rather than
> semantic. Unicode shouldn't bother with those minutia.
>
>
> What about the reverse case, where the uppercase is the same and the lower
> case isn't?
>
> There are precedents in Unicode where these have been disunified.
>
> U+00D0 LATIN CAPITAL LETTER ETH
> U+0189 LATIN CAPITAL LETTER AFRICAN D
>
> look exactly identical.
>
> Precedents like this make the issue considerably less than clear cut,
>
>
>
> > I suppose nothing will happen until the governments of eng-using
> countries come together with a proposal.
>
> Let's hope so. I wish they never do.
>
>
> Lets hope they come together and endorse a solution that takes into
> account not only rendering, but identifier security issues as well. And
> while they are at it, I wouldn't refuse if they squared the circle.
>
> A./
>
>
> Leo
>
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 2:06 PM, Michael Everson <everson_at_evertype.com>wrote:
>
>> On 12 Dec 2013, at 15:29, Leo Broukhis <leob_at_mailcom.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Hasn't http://www.unicode.org/standard/where/#Variant_Shapes explained
>> it once and for all?
>>
>> No, because users of N-shaped capital Eng consider n-shaped capital Eng
>> to be *WRONG*, not an acceptable variant. And because n-shaped capital Eng
>> consider N-shaped capital Eng to be *WRONG*, not an acceptable variant.
>>
>> Disunification is the best solution.
>>
>> I suppose nothing will happen until the governments of eng-using
>> countries come together with a proposal.
>>
>> Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
>>
>>
>
>
Received on Thu Dec 12 2013 - 17:11:58 CST