On 28/09/2004 21:03, Michael Everson wrote:
Only if the two forms of a or the two forms of g in Latin script are different letters. It seems clear from the few examples I have looked at that these two forms of modified pe are glyph variants, with the same place in the alphabet, the same phonetic representation, and used in the same words in various texts of the UN declaration. Well, I didn't actually check the last point. But surely if that is true, they are glyph variants.At 12:59 -0700 2004-09-28, Joe Becker \(Unicode\) wrote:
> I'm not going to stipulate that those giant hooks ARE descenders
You don't have to. I am telling you that these codes were assigned to the extended pe variant that occurs in Abkhazian, and have always been so annotated.
The extended pe variant that I have seen in Abkhazian has the giant hook on it. That is a different diacritic deformation than the descender. If a pe with descender exists, it is not the same as a pe with the giant hook. Those are two different LETTERS. This (letter identity) is a different thing from "what is used in Abkhaz orthography".
> We have seen examples where hook and descender are distinct
If you have examples of two distinguished pe variants occurring within the same Abkhazian text, then there is a problem.
I don't know whether PE WITH DESCENDER needs to be encoded or not, but it is certainly not a glyph variant of PE WITH HOOK. ...
And someone who didn't know English would doubtless say the same about the two versions of a or of g. Nevertheless, they are glyph variants.
... That is the kind of overunification which I will never consider to be acceptable.
-- Peter Kirk [EMAIL PROTECTED] (personal) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) http://www.qaya.org/
