Anto'nio Martins-Tuva'lkin wrote on 03/18/2003 09:46:30 AM: > > 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.
Eh? No, the only thing it could be a glyph variant of is U+00D0. What would make you think to make it a variant of 0189? - Peter --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Constable Non-Roman Script Initiative, SIL International 7500 W. Camp Wisdom Rd., Dallas, TX 75236, USA Tel: +1 972 708 7485
