From: "Peter Kirk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > This letter looks nothing like U+01A3, which is also visible in the > bottom line of the attachment.
You exhibit a glyph that ressembles to the two ligated digits "01", where the second goes below the baseline. This type of glyph variant is well known in some fonts that do not display all digits aboge the base line (notably the 4, 7 and 9 digits often have descenders). The right part of the glyph in Arial Unicode MS is rounded rather than angular like a "1" for this second part. This can be seen as a matter of style. But the first time I saw this "LETTER OI", I first identified it as a variant of "g" or "9", then the Unicode name uggested it would read as a ligature of a "o" and a dotless "i" or iota... I don't know which language really uses this character, but given the various way it appears in fonts, your proposed character really is within the variations admitted in some fonts to represent U+01A3. If there's a bad name for "LETTER OI", then how can we interpret the Unicode assignment, if neither the representative glyph, not available glyphs in common fonts, nor the noramtive Unicode name will reveal abstract character identity? This means that the current character assignment needs clarifications... Or something which was specified in the assignment proposal is not published in the Unicode standard... Where can we find the Nxxx.pdf document describing the justification for encoding this character? If no clear statement was specifying its usage or was accepted by ISO/IEC 10646, then we have some weak assignment here, and the assigned character already covers your proposed character, until there's a real need to make it distinct (not unified) from the existing assigned character.
