On 16 Sep 2012, at 12:16, Gerrit Ansmann wrote:
> First, there are stroked variants of ‹W› and ‹w› (see appended sketch). Since combined characters do not qualify for unicode anymore, I first thought to encode them using U+0337 (combining short solidus overlay). However, »LATIN CAPITAL LETTER L WITH STROKE« and »LATIN CAPITAL LETTER L, COMBINING SHORT SOLIDUS OVERLAY« are listed as confusable characters, which in turn confused me. So my questions are: Do these characters qualify for a submission to unicode?
They would. It would be interesting to know whether there were any Antiqua versions of that Sorbian orthography.
> Second, there is an ‹a› with to vertically aligned dots above. Should this be encoded as ‹a + U+0307 + U+0307› (‹ȧ̇› – ‹a› with double ‹combining dot above›) or does it qualify for a new diacritical mark?
I might find it easier to answer that if I could see an example. My initial thought is that 0307 0307 would be suitable.
> Third, I noticed, that the positioning of diacritical marks on certain letters is not straightforward. E.g., for a ‹b with acute›, the acute could be placed either above the bowl or the vertical stem of the ‹b›. Am I assuming correctly, that this disambiguity is not to be dealt with on the encoding level, but on the font level, e.g., with glyph variants?
Yes, unless the placement of the acute is meaningful (two different letters). In a normalized text one would most likely just decide where it goes and stick with that for all, if there is no meaningful distinction.
Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
Received on Sun Sep 16 2012 - 11:37:34 CDT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Sun Sep 16 2012 - 11:37:36 CDT