> Standard orthography, and orthography that someone may >choose to use on a sign, or in handwriting, are often not >the same.
If someone's writes an a-umlaut, no matter what it looks, it should be encoded as an a-umlaut. That's the identity of the character they wrote. I'm sure my German teacher would not appreciate us typing up our homework and using A-macron, even if the symbol she used for a-umlaut on the blackboard looked like a macron. > Math Fraktur A is a letter (of course!). Many letters, >including ordinary A, are used as symbols too. If it were a letter, then no one would have a problem with you writing language with it. But there are warnings all over the place, about how A and an appropriate font should be used for Fraktur A. Math Fraktur A is a symbol - it doesn't stand for a sound or a word. >You seem to argue that for "symbols" (whichever those are, >I'm sure you *don't* mean general categories S*...) there is >total rigidity, while for "non-symbols" (whichever those are) >there is near total anarchy and font makers can change glyphs >to something entirely different. Font makers can change the glyphs to whatever they want, so long as it is uniquely that character. > Marco, I'm not sure it is of any use to try to explain in >more detail, since you don't appear to be listening. However, >I think I, Marc, Doug, and Mark (at the very least) seem >to be in approximate agreement on this (at least, I have >yet to see any major disagreement). I'm sure Michael >would agree too (at least I hope so), and many others. Interesting. I don't agree totally with Marco, but I'm of the opinion that glyphs of a with e above, a with macron above, and a with Disney ears above can be suitable glyphs for a-umlaut, and I got the impression that Mark and Doug agreed with me.
