Peter Kirk said: > I don't agree that ancient history should necessarily determine this. > It's a bit like the distinction between U and V in English, in fact > closely analogous phonetically. As originally used in English they were > one character. But I don't think that would justify an argument that > they should now be encoded as one character and distinguished only by > context or markup. In current usage they are clearly distinct, and that > should be decisive.
Fair enough. But there is still a difference between typographic variance because some fontographers choose to do so and relatively generally accepted orthography (as with u, v). It would seem in this case that there is enough accepted practice, both ancient and modern, to warrant the differentiation in encoding. That being said, I think one would like homogeneity in encoding principle, with the variance shown or not on the typographic level. No? >K, I > don't think you French Canadians Peter, I'm *NOT* French-Canadian. I'm English Canadian but with French citizenship. (In a very strict sense, I'm Qu�becois as I was born here, but in every practical sense, culturally and as far as the 'real' Qu�becois are concerned, I'm not one of them.) > would be very happy if accented upper > case vowels were removed from Unicode because they are not used in > France. Though I have to confess that I use accented uppercase vowels, but not through Qu�becois influence, simply because they're there an I believe in maximum clues for the reader. > (I must find some way to divide you from the real French :-) ) No you don't . I *am* real French. You have to find a way to divide me from 'real' Qu�becois or more generally from real French-Canadians. (We could have a lot of fun arguing about what 'real Brits' are...) K
