Peter Kirk wrote in response to Philippe Verdy:Thank you, Ken.
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.
You know by making use of the standard, where the informative notes (= gha, * Pan-Turkic Latin alphabets) were added precisely to enable the proper identification.
...
When the combination of character name and representative glyph and associated informative annotations is insufficient to correctly identify a character in the standard, the recourse is to Ask the Experts and request further annotation of the standard to assist future users from running into the same problem.
--Ken
As you will see, I have requested precisely this clarification for U+0184/0185, to clarify that this letter is used in pan-Turkic alphabets as well as in Zhuang. I am also asking for a change in the reference glyph for U+0185, because in both Zhuang and pan-Turkic this should be much shorter, and distinguished from "b" primarily by its size.
-- Peter Kirk [EMAIL PROTECTED] (personal) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) http://www.qaya.org/
