On 05/01/2004 14:12, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, you are right, and using a very British hyperbole. The TUS 4.0 glyph is quite simply incorrect. ...... With regards to U+0185, could it be said that the informative glyph in TUS 2.0, 3.0 and 4.0 is a bit misleading, or does that glyph represent a variance from the text(s) with which you're familiar?
Not hyperbole, of course, but its opposite, litotes or understatement.
...That is, shorter than the reference glyph in TUS 4.0. This reference glyph needs to be changed. I would suggest a form identical to U+0446.
I conclude that the same glyph can be used for Chuang and Azerbaijani, but it needs to be significantly shorter than the Unicode reference glyph.
-- Peter Kirk [EMAIL PROTECTED] (personal) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) http://www.qaya.org/
