From: Anto'nio Martins-Tuva'lkin (antonio@tuvalkin.web.pt)
Date: Thu Sep 08 2005 - 17:59:15 CDT
On 2004.10.02, 00:30, Kenneth Whistler <kenw@sybase.com> wrote:
> the *obvious* alternative:
>
> U+0367 COMBINING LATIN SMALL LETTER U
<...>
> you just design a ligature in it to represent the sequence
> <0062, 0367, 0067>.
This seems indeed the best way to go (IMOVVHO), *if* the said squiggle
is indeed an "u". If not, as I suspect, but rather an all-purpose mark
to differentiate similar letters (like the already mentioned German
use of a U+016D-looking glyph for handwritten lowercase "u", otherwise
identical to "n" -- note also that the orginal post mentioned that the
abbreviation "bg" is added this mark when meaning "-burg", while "bg"
alone means "-berg"), then the solution should be different, possibly
using some kind of breve (double, single, combining, zero-width, what
not).
-- ____.
António MARTINS-Tuválkin | ()|
<antonio@tuvalkin.web.pt> |####|
PT-1___-___ LISBOA Não me invejo de quem tem |
+351 934 821 700 carros, parelhas e montes |
http://www.tuvalkin.web.pt/bandeira/ só me invejo de quem bebe |
http://pagina.de/bandeiras/ a água em todas as fontes |
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Sep 08 2005 - 17:59:37 CDT