From: jameskass@att.net
Date: Mon Jan 05 2004 - 17:12:06 EST
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Kirk" <peterkirk@qaya.org>
To: "Philippe Verdy" <verdy_p@wanadoo.fr>
Cc: "Unicode Mailing List" <unicode@unicode.org>
Sent: Monday, January 05, 2004 8:16 AM
Subject: Re: unicode Digest V4 #3
Peter Kirk wrote,
>
> I note an incorrect glyph for U+0185 in Code2000 and in Arial Unicode
> MS; this looks like b with no serif at the bottom but should be much
> shorter, like ь, the Cyrillic soft sign. The Arial Unicode MS glyph for
> U+04BB is also incorrect - it should look identical to Latin h - but
> this problem is well known.
>
No comment on U+04BB. With regards to U+0185, could it be
said that the informative glyph in TUS 2.0, 3.0 and 4.0 is a bit
misleading, or does that glyph represent a variance from the
text(s) with which you're familiar?
http://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/U0180.pdf
Magnify U0180.pdf to 400% and put the row 0185 - 0195 - 01A5
towards the top of the screen so that the top of U+0185 touches
the screen area border. Note that the top of U+0185 aligns with
the top of U+0195, suggesting that these glyphs would have the
same height.
In THE LANGUAGES OF THE WORLD by Kenneth Katzner (1975),
the example for Chuang seems to show a glyph covering U+0185
as you describe. (page 212)
This page uses a scan from THE LANGUAGES OF THE WORLD
as its Chuang example:
http://www.worldlanguage.com/Languages/Chuang.htm
No sample text, no lower case illustration:
http://www.alphabets-world.com/chuang.html
If the informative glyph in TUS *is* misleading, I'll be happy
to make appropriate changes here.
Best regards,
James Kass
.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jan 05 2004 - 17:57:41 EST