On 3/26/2017 6:18 AM, Michael Everson wrote:
> On 26 Mar 2017, at 10:07, Erkki I Kolehmainen <eik_at_iki.fi> wrote:
>> I tend to agree with Martin, Philippe and others in questioning the disunification.
> You may, but you give no evidence or discussion about it, so...
>
> In any case it’s not a disunification. Some characters are encoded; they were used to write diphthongs in 1855. These characters were abandoned by 1859, and other characters were devised.
Calling them "characters" is pre-judging the issue, don't you think?
We know that these are different shapes, but that they stand for the
same text elements.
A./
> The origin of all of the characters as ligatures of other characters isn’t questioned. The right thing to do is to add the missing characters, not to invalidate any font that uses the 1855 characters by claiming that the 1855 and 1859 characters are “the same”.
>
> Michael Everson
>
Received on Sun Mar 26 2017 - 11:02:28 CDT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Sun Mar 26 2017 - 11:02:28 CDT