Peter Kirk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > but then there could well be a dictionary out > there somewhere which uses one of your supposedly equivalent ligatures > for the voiced th and another one for the unvoiced th.
So we make decisions based on one _hypothetical_ dictionary? I've got a grammar here that uses a Fraktur ch as a phonetic symbol; I've got a book on the sounds of German and English that uses various small capital letters as phonetic symbols, some of which weren't in Unicode last time I checked (pre-4.0); I've got a dictionary that uses Arabic numerals as combining superscripts; and I've got a book on Chakquiel that uses Latin letter Tresillo and Quatrillo that I'd really like to put online. All of these are _real_ books, yet no one is rushing to make changes solely based on them. (Which is not to slight the people who actually are working on Tresillo and Quatrillo, but the holdup is finding other usages.) The correct behavior is take a large-print copy of the Handbook of the IPA and beat the publishers about the head until they start using real symbols. As a fall-back plan, as that may be illegal in some states, we might encode a th-ligature or point to t-<zwj>-h. But encoding a bunch of th ligatures that exist _because_ there's nothing standardized and imagine that they might be used somewhere in a way that someone not obsessing about legitimate font changes might care about is absurd. -- ___________________________________________________________ Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm
