From: Страхиња Радић (vilinkamen@mail.ru)
Date: Tue May 31 2005 - 14:14:56 CDT
Дана 2005.05.23 22:17, Kenneth Whistler је написао:
> The burden of proof at this point would be for demonstrating that
> a digraphic representation is insufficient, so that a separate
> Glagolitic digraph for this would need to be added to the standard.
By using this kind of reasoning, we would end up asking why the heck
was ``fi'' or ``ffi'' encoded when these two can be expressed with their
corresponding atoms, or, more closer to what I asked, why the Cyrillic
``yeriy'' was encoded as a standalone character, when it could be happily
represented with a soft sign + ``deseteric'' (dotless) i? And why there is no
dotless i in Cyrillic? It is used in some Serbo-slavic texts from from the XIX
century.
And nobody answered my other questions:
1) Why the variant characters were encoded? Ex: ``LATINATE MYSLITE'' is
a variant of ``MYSLITE'', which should be expressed font-wise, NOT
standard-wise?
2) What does ``LATINATE'' mean and in what language?
3) Why ``SHTAPIC'' and not ``PALOCHKA'' or ``STICK''? And could someone
explain to me what is the use of this character?
4) Why ``SMALL LETTER IOTATED SMALL YUS'' instead of ``SMALL LETTER
IOTIFIED LITTLE YUS'', which in my opinion would be more compatible with the
Cyrillic counterpart?
Best regards,
Strahinya
-- ---------------------------- http://www.gnu.org/home.html Because *freedom* matters! ----------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue May 31 2005 - 15:16:51 CDT