Peter said: > > On this list we > > have discussed the relation of > > > > U+0294 LATIN SMALL LETTER GLOTTAL STOP > > Actually, is LATIN LETTER GLOTTAL STOP. It is only the general category > property in the UCS that suggests lowercase. > > > > with an x-height *LATIN SMALL LETTER GLOTTAL STOP used in Athapascan. > > > > What shall we do? Research seems required. ;-) > > I think what seems required is simply to add a new character for the > lowercase and change the property of 0294 to Lu.
Yee gawds, no! Athapascan and every other North American language and language family with glottal stops would have been using U+0294 for its (case-unmarked) glottal stop for years now. If anybody needs an explicitly uppercase glottal stop, then argue the case (*hehe*) for that. But it is decidely wrong to take what has all along been the unmarked/lowercase glottal stop, reinterpret it as an *uppercase* glottal stop and introduce a new lowercase glottal stop. *That* would result in endless confusion and in data corruption. Look at the text of Pullum and Ladusaw, p. 211. All those x-height forms are simply glyph variants. If someone is taking the cap-height form and *distinguishing* it as a capital letter, then fine, come up with a new encoding for it, but don't mess with the basic glottal stop itself. --Ken
