Re: Engmagate?

On 12/12/2013 3:10 PM, Leo Broukhis wrote:
> 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 đ, "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?
>
> > 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 ū 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.
>

For some identifier systems it may be possible to institute a weak
normalization that would reduce the impact of duplicating the lower case
letter.

But disunifying any character at this stage may lead to either abandoned
data, or data that gets miscoded w/o anybody being the wiser.

Hence it is not true that

"Disunification is the best solution."

under every scenario.

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 Thu Dec 12 2013 - 19:01:41 CST