Internet Explorer 5.5, running under Windows 95 -- a non-Unicode system except for the UniScribe support provided by IE -- can display not only Latin Y with grave and with acute but also Greek Upsilon with varia and with oxia.
I can't see Pim's psili or perispomeni combinations because none of my fonts support those two combining diacritical marks, but that seems to be the only reason. Given this, I would agree with Starner that the current situation is a little brighter than "operating systems don't support the display of combining marks in Latin/Greek/Cyrillic." -Doug Ewell Fullerton, California ----- Original Message ----- From: "David J. Perry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2002 5:50 pm Subject: RE: Greek Extended: question: missing glyphs? > Unicode cognoscenti, > > The responses to Pim's question are all correct, of course. However, I > would make a plea that when answering such questions, especially from > people new to Unicode, a sentence should be added such as the following: > "At the moment, operating systems don't support the display of combining > marks in Latin/Greek/Cyrillic. We understand that this is frustrating > for some users, but, for the reasons already explained, adding > precomposed combinations is no longer possible." It seems almost > arrogant to baldly tell someone that they need to use combining marks > when they can't do it! > > I do certainly understand that this situation is not the fault of the > Unicode Consortium, and I do not mean to denigrate the work of anyone on > this list--you are all white hats, doing great work in helping people > use more writing systems in better ways. I don't think anybody meant to > sound the wrong note, but (as someone who eagerly awaits OT support in > Latin/Greek/Cyrillic) I think the replies did. > > In light of the above, Asmus' comments > > > However, it might be worthwhile to submit the gist of this > > letter to the UTC with a request to document that the 'missing' > > combinations are expected to occur, and to alert font vendors > > intending to support classical Greek to make sure that their fonts > > supply these glyphs. > > don't make a lot of sense. The combining marks needed are already > encoded. What does this mean -- that font vendors should add glyphs to > the PUA? This does not help to further the standard. What we need is > support for combining marks so we can use what has been in Unicode for a > very long time. I've read that support for combining marks in Latin is > coming in Office, and I am assuming that this means Greek and Cyrillic > also. If anyone can confirm that, you would make my day. > > David
