From: Tulasi (tulasird@gmail.com)
Date: Wed Jun 16 2010 - 18:40:41 CDT
John -> If I define a symbol (variable or constant) named ɸ and some
user types 'φ' or 'ϕ' instead, it won't match.
Can you please post the names for the other two, i.e., 'φ' or 'ϕ' ?
John -> That's why we have Latin-1, Latin-2, etc.
It looks like Latin-1 Latin-2 etc are sub sets of Latin, probably
created by programmers/coders. Have I guessed correctly A./ ? :)
Scholarly community uses names (or phrases) highlighting rationale
(basis for the name).
Tulasi
From: John Dlugosz <JDlugosz@tradestation.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 11:25:27 -0400
Subject: RE: Latin Script
To: "vanisaac@boil.afraid.org" <vanisaac@boil.afraid.org>, Tulasi
<tulasird@gmail.com>, Edward Cherlin <echerlin@gmail.com>
Cc: "unicode@unicode.org" <unicode@unicode.org>, Mark Davis ☕
<mark@macchiato.com>, Otto Stolz <Otto.Stolz@uni-konstanz.de>,
Jonathan Rosenne <jr@qsm.co.il>
> Amazingly, I consider Latin Small Letter Phi to be a part of the Latin
> script. Why?: in my typographic life, I would design it differently
> from Greek small Letter Phi. The Greek phi needs to work with other
> Greek letters. The Latin phi needs to work in phonetic notation, which
> is Latin letters; it needs to have more contrast with Latin Small
> Letter Q than the Greek phi, so it has an ascender. As a Classicist, a
> Greek phi with an ascender interrupts the flow of text, unless in a
> slant font, so it is designed quite differently from Latin Small Letter
> Phi. It's just like Cyrillic Dze and Sha, which have been borrowed from
> Latin and Coptic, are designed and act like Cyrillic letters.
I appreciate the difference in appearance when using a phi with
English text. But, why isn't that a font difference (only)? We use
some regular letters for IPA spellings, and don't need special codes
for those.
Having more than one phi makes it hard on computer programming
languages. If I define a symbol (variable or constant) named ɸ and
some user types 'φ' or 'ϕ' instead, it won't match.
> The question really only makes sense if it has
> context: for what purpose are you defining something as Latin script?
I agree. That's why we have Latin-1, Latin-2, etc. When not limited
to 256 code points, you can say "Character set suitable for encoding
the following languages..." and look at the historical national code
pages for them as well as modern stuff that didn't fit in 256 or were
not applicable to fixed-pitch fonts, such as typographic characters.
--John
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jun 16 2010 - 18:45:23 CDT