Re: COMBINING OVER MARK?

Le 01/10/2013 12:20, Frédéric Grosshans a écrit :
> Le 01/10/2013 02:51, Leo Broukhis a écrit :
>>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> Attached is a part of page 36 of Henry Alford's */The Queen's
>> English: a manual of idiom and usage/ (1888)*
>> [http://archive.org/details/queensenglishman00alfo]
>>
>> Is the way to indicate alternative s/z spellings used there plain
>> text (arguably, if it can be done with a typewriter, it is plain
>> text) or rich text (ignoring the font size of letters s and z)?
> U+xxxx LATIN SUBSCRIPT LATIN SMALL LETTER Z U+1DE4 COMBINING LATIN
> SMALL LETTER S, but LATIN SUBSCRIPT LATIN SMALL LETTER Z doesn't
> exist. Interestingly, the opposite combination, U+209B LATIN SUBSCRIPT
> SMALL LETTER S ‍ U+1DE6 COMBINING LATIN SMALL LETTER Z exists. U+007A
> : LATIN SMALL LETTER Z
> U+1DE4 : COMBINING LATIN SMALL LETTER S
>
The text you scanned would then be in plain text (with s and z inverted)

49. How are we to decide between s and z in such words as anatemathiₛᷦe
cauteriₛᷦe, criticiₛᷦe, deodoriₛᷦe, dogmatiₛᷦe, fraterniₛᷦe and the rest
? Many of these are derived from Greek

Since that is possible with current unicode while the original
orthography of Henry Alford's 1888 book is not, I think this an argument
to encode LATIN SUBSCRIPT LATIN Z.

It was proposed among others in 2011 in the proposal n4068/L2 11-208
http://www.unicode.org/L2/L2011/11208-n4068.pdf which was asking for all
missing subscript, superscript and small capital latin letters. The
German NB supported this proposal in L2/11-416
http://www.unicode.org/L2/L2011/11416-request-on-n4068.pdf and n4085
http://std.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc2/wg2/docs/n4085.pdf . It was discussed in
the january 2012 meeting (see section 9.1, p29 of
http://std.dkuug.dk/JTC1/SC2/wg2/docs/n4253.pdf ) and rejected because
of a lack of evidence.

On the other hand, similar stacked characters where proposed with
Theutonista characters (fig. 1,2, 15, 19, 35, 53, ...) of
std.dkuug.dk/JTC1/SC2/wg2/docs/n4081.pdf) . Some really looked like a
subscript letter with a combining letter, but the discussion in
http://std.dkuug.dk/JTC1/SC2/wg2/docs/n4106.pdf shows that they could be
analyzᷤed as normal letter + combining letter. However, in your case,
the whole point of the orthography is to put z and s an equal footing,
and I don't think "zᷤ = U+007A : LATIN SMALL LETTER ZU+1DE4 : COMBINING
LATIN SMALL LETTER S" would be a correct representation.

     Frédéric
Received on Tue Oct 01 2013 - 10:20:01 CDT