Re: Engmagate?

Le 13/12/13 00:10, Leo Broukhis a écrit :
> In the case of ɖ vs ð vs đ, there are three different letters, as
> follows from their names, that happen to have identical capital glyphs
> (those you've mentioned plus U+0110 LATIN CAPITAL LETTER D WITH STROKE).
>
> Speaking of Ä‘, "an alternate glyph with the stroke through the bowl is
> used in Americanist orthographies" without any [loud] cries about
> disunification.
>
> If N-Eng and n-Eng are disunified but small engs aren't (should
> they?), who keeps the "default" "toupper" conversion?

Ifever the small engs were disunified, the capital ones should be
disunified too, or that would lead to a problem à la Turkish where, in
international databases, i’s loose their dot when Turkish names are
capitalized while they shouldn’t.

>
> > And while they are at it, I wouldn't refuse if they squared the circle.
>
> That's exactly right.
>
> Leo
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 2:52 PM, Asmus Freytag <asmusf_at_ix.netcom.com
> <mailto:asmusf_at_ix.netcom.com>> wrote:
>
> On 12/12/2013 2:25 PM, Leo Broukhis wrote:
>> Hmmm... As a person with Russian as the first language I can
>> assure you that from any literate Russian-speaking person's
>> perspective italic Å« is an unacceptable and *WRONG*
>> representation of п (because in Russian, unlike Serbian, there is
>> й). Should we bother disunifying?
>
> This example adds the issue of font style - because for styles
> other than italic, the issue doesn't exist. I would take that as a
> stronger indication that this is an issue that belongs in glyph
> space.
>
>>
>> The fact that the lowercase letter is the same in both cases
>> proves that the difference between N-Eng and n-Eng is purely
>> stylistic rather than semantic. Unicode shouldn't bother with
>> those minutia.
>
> What about the reverse case, where the uppercase is the same and
> the lower case isn't?
>
> There are precedents in Unicode where these have been disunified.
>
> U+00D0 LATIN CAPITAL LETTER ETH
> U+0189 LATIN CAPITAL LETTER AFRICAN D
>
> look exactly identical.
>
> Precedents like this make the issue considerably less than clear cut,
>
>
>>
>> > I suppose nothing will happen until the governments of
>> eng-using countries come together with a proposal.
>>
>> Let's hope so. I wish they never do.
>
> Lets hope they come together and endorse a solution that takes
> into account not only rendering, but identifier security issues as
> well. And while they are at it, I wouldn't refuse if they squared
> the circle.
>
> A./
>
>>
>> Leo
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 2:06 PM, Michael Everson
>> <everson_at_evertype.com <mailto:everson_at_evertype.com>> wrote:
>>
>> On 12 Dec 2013, at 15:29, Leo Broukhis <leob_at_mailcom.com
>> <mailto:leob_at_mailcom.com>> wrote:
>>
>> > Hasn't
>> http://www.unicode.org/standard/where/#Variant_Shapes
>> explained it once and for all?
>>
>> No, because users of N-shaped capital Eng consider n-shaped
>> capital Eng to be *WRONG*, not an acceptable variant. And
>> because n-shaped capital Eng consider N-shaped capital Eng to
>> be *WRONG*, not an acceptable variant.
>>
>> Disunification is the best solution.
>>
>> I suppose nothing will happen until the governments of
>> eng-using countries come together with a proposal.
>>
>> Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
>>
>>
>
>
Received on Fri Dec 13 2013 - 01:16:05 CST