...Which would be an extremely stupid thing to do, even more stupid than calling the character OI in the first place. The idea only arose because you, Philippe, got confused between two quite different characters which were both in the same list which I made.
I maintain that if you remove the glyph shown for latin letter oi (considered only as informative and not mandatory in any of its aspects), and just keep its normative name, then many people will think that the encoded character really represents a letter named or pronounced "oi". Which is completely wrong in our case. But would allow people to use the assigned code point to represent the L-shaped character "i with lower-right hook"...
But you do seem to have found a real problem with the standard. If the character name is not guaranteed to be an accurate means of identification of the character, and the glyph is not normative, how can I know from the standard that U+01A3 is intended to be this pan-Turkic gha, i.e. that that is its fundamental character identity, and that it is not in fact a character in some other even more obscure variant Latin alphabet which is actually named or pronounced "oi"? Of course the notes do help, as does the glyph, but these are not normative.
Some rather similar issues apply to the Hebrew accents tsinnor/zarqa and tsinnorit, for which the character names do not adequately specify the fundamental character identity, and the editors of the standard seem to have been rather too quick to add officially informative notes which in fact impact on fundamental identity.
-- Peter Kirk [EMAIL PROTECTED] (personal) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) http://www.qaya.org/
