> [Original Message] > From: Peter Kirk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > On 06/03/2004 10:31, Doug Ewell wrote: > > >Peter Kirk <peterkirk at qaya dot org> wrote: > > > >>Anyway, the character "has well defined user community / usage", the > >>users of the dictionary in question. It is not clear that "user" > >>implies those who write the character, or only those who read it. > >>Many historical characters have been accepted for Unicode which are > >>not regularly written, except in copying old texts, but are still > >>regularly read. > > > >This implies that the requirement for "interchange" of the proposed > >character is no longer in effect, or at least seriously weakened. I'm > >not sure if that's the case. > > Well, if the publishers of this dictionary prepare an on-line edition > and put it on the web, does that count as "interchange"? Or is > "interchange" required to be bidirectional? This is a general principle > which affects words used in ancient texts as well as cases like this one.
There are several on-line dictionaries available now. A quick examination found six different ways of representing the sound of voiced th. 1) Italicize "th" 2) Underline "th" 3) Use "dh" 4) Use the eth "�" but not the full IPA. (Eth is in Latin-1.) 5) Use "[|th]" 6) Provide a audio file for the word. Do we really want to encode a particular publisher's markup as a character in Unicode? Has anyone asked the editors of those dictionaries whether they desire this character to be in Unicode?
