----- Original Message -----
From: "Marco Cimarosti" <marco.cimarosti@essetre.it>
To: "'Stefan Persson'" <alsjebegrijptwatikbedoel@yahoo.se>; "Unicode-listan"
<unicode@unicode.org>
Sent: den 29 januari 2002 19:39
Subject: RE: Proposing Fraktur
> Stefan Persson wrote:
> > In old Swedish there was a tradition of writing words of
> > foreign origin in the Roman type of letters (in Swedish
> > referred to as "antikva"), while the rest of the words
> > were written in Fraktur.
>
> I have seen the same usage in German, on an old Duden dictionary: words of
> foreign origins and etymologies were in Roman, the rest being in Fraktur.
> [...]
> And a similar difference is used in all modern European languages: roman
for
> normal text and italics for foreign words.
The only case I've seen this in use is for some special frases of French
origin when used in English. Besides, this is no "rule" (i.e. you don't have
to use italics), while this rule was applied to *all* occurences of such
words in old Swedish.
> But notice that roman, italics and Fraktur all look alike and share a
common
> origin, while katakana and hiragana letters are very different and
generally
> derive from completely different ideographs.
And so what? I thought the meaning of Unicode was that all languages should
be fully supported in plain text, using one single font to displaying all of
the characters. With old Swedish, this isn't possible.
> > [...] I know that the letters A-z are already supported
> > in the Mathematical Alphanumeric Symbol block (and some
> > in the Letterlike Symbols block),
>
> AFAIK, those characters should not be used to compose text: they are
> supposed to be *symbols* to be used by mathematicians too busy to set a
> different font. ;-)
Again: one language, one font.
Stefan
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jan 29 2002 - 14:33:38 EST