On 2003.03.17, 23:26, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > U+01B7: The glyph that appears in the code charts is that shown in > LtnCapEzh_LrgLC.gif. In the Dagbani language of Ghana, they use a small > letter that looks like U+0292 LATIN SMALL LETTER EZH, but the capital > counterpart that they use is like the glyph shown in > LtnCapEzh_RevSigma.gif. This is quite different in appearance from the > representative glyph for U+01B7. Should this be considered a glyph > variant of U+01B7, or should it be considered a distinct character?
I guess it is indeed a variant of U+01B7, but it sure looks better than the usual "3"-like shape of it... > U+00D0: The glyph that appears in the code charts for U+00D0 is shown > in LtnCapEth_DStrk.gif. Now, the African Reference Alphabet document > that was produced at a conference in Niamey in 1978 proposed a small > letter that looks like U+00F0 LATIN SMALL LETTER ETH, but the capital > counterpart is like the glyph shown in LtnCapEthLrgSqLC.gif. This is > quite different in appearance from the representative glyph for > U+00D0. Should this be considered a glyph variant of U+00D0, or should > it be considered a distinct character? I guess it is yes a glyph variant but rather for U+0189. On 2003.03.18, 00:20, Kenneth Whistler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > To do otherwise would be to introduce casing problems for eth. No, if it is supposed to be, as I suppose, U+0189, whose the LC form is U+0256. Anyway, U+00D0 and U+0110 are casing problems enough for this glyph... ;-) -- ____. Ant�nio MARTINS-Tuv�lkin, | ()| <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> |####| R. Laureano de Oliveira, 64 r/c esq. | PT-1885-050 MOSCAVIDE (LRS) N�o me invejo de quem tem | +351 917 511 459 carros, parelhas e montes | http://www.tuvalkin.web.pt/bandeira/ s� me invejo de quem bebe | http://pagina.de/bandeiras/ a �gua em todas as fontes |
