John Cowan <cowan@locke.ccil.org> writes:
> Erland Sommarskog scripsit:
>
> > That's like LATIN CAPTIAL LETTER I, isn't it? Or is there a separate
> > LATIN CAPITAL TURKISH DOTLESS I to prevent this to happen?
>
> No, there isn't. In that case, shape beats semantics, and Turkic
> case mapping is just plain different from other Latin-script languages.
> This problem was inherited from 8859-9, and it is beyond changing now.
> *sigh*
I'm not really sure whether the sigh is directed towards the actual
state of affairs, or my silly question.
In any case, if we were to define a universal character set without
any compatibility considerations, disunifying the I:s because of the
different case rules, seems like a less good idea to me. As well in
fact disunify the different A:s in Latin, Cyrillic and Greek. Sure
case rules gets easier, but everything else, including user interface,
gets messier.
Case rules, while very similar many languages, are not completely
similar, and thus this particular argument against Janko's call for
new glyphs doesn't really hold, I believe.
Marco.Cimarosti@icl.com writes:
> Righ: it would be a mess similar to the case of Turkish "i"s.
I'm not sure I would like to call it a mess. Just a simple fact of
life. Of course, life would have been simpler if the tower of Babel
never had been, and we all had been spoken Proto-World. But then we
wouldn't have had this mailing list to amuse ourselves with...
-- Erland Sommarskog, Stockholm, sommar@algonet.se
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:58 EDT