From: Doug Ewell (dewell@adelphia.net)
Date: Sat May 05 2007 - 12:18:38 CST
Karl Pentzlin <karl dash pentzlin at acssoft dot de> wrote:
> PC> In fact, I can point you to instances in which @ has been used as
> PC> a lowercase word-forming letter with an uppercase pair. (Of
> PC> course, this is among the worst orthographic innovations
> PC> imaginable.)
>
> Then, if you want to use such letters in Unicode, these letters are
> not the "Punctuation, other" characters U+0040 COMMERCIAL AT.
> Instead, a new Latin letter pair should be considered (U+xxxx/U+yyyy
> LATIN LETTER CAPITAL/SMALL LETTER COMMERCIAL AT or named otherwise).
> This resembles the introduction of U+0241/U+0242 as cased pair in
> contrast to the explicitly caseless letter U+0294.
> At least in that case, the cased letters were considered different
> from the similar looking (to the uppercase letter) existing letter.
Considered and rejected. See
http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/pr-40-ewell.pdf .
-- Doug Ewell * Fullerton, California, USA * RFC 4645 * UTN #14 http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/ http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat May 05 2007 - 12:20:59 CST