>>2. The case pair for barred o is encoded (U+019F and U+0275), and it seems that their confusion comes from less-than-perfect but annotated name for U+019F, and from the usage remark "African". Can we authoritatively tell them that those two characters are the ones they want?
IMO, yes. >>Can we add a "Tatar" usage remark to both? That can certainly be done (assuming the info on Tatar is correct), and may be helpful. >>3. The case pair n with descender is definitely not encoded, and from my memory of the discussion of ghe with descender, we would want to encode them as separate characters (rather than with combining descenders on "n"). Yes. >>Is anybody working on that proposal? The ghe with descender is already approved by UTC and in the PDAM for amendement 1. If you look in the documentation on SIL's usage of the PUA (http://scripts.sil.org/cms/scripts/page.php?site_id=nrsi&cat_id=Unicode PUA) you'll find that I had been given evidence for Latin H/h with descender in Judeo-Tat (not related to Tatar). I had anticipated preparing a proposal for that and the other orthographic characters in SIL's PUA usage, but have not yet had opportunity to do so. The n-descender was not among the thing that were added to SIL's PUA usage, though. Peter Peter Constable Globalization Infrastructure and Font Technologies Microsoft Windows Division
