On 16 Aug 2012, at 16:55, Jukka K. Korpela wrote: > In a sense, it’s just the way it is, but I think I can see the reasoning > behind this. Although strokes across letters are comparable to diacritic > marks in a sense, and surely historically, the also differ from them in > essential ways. They cross over letters instead of just sitting above, below, > or otherwise near a base letters. perhaps more importantly, they differ in > placement, width, and angle: compare e.g. “ø”, “ł”, and “đ” with each other. > If the stroke were defined as a diacritic, its identity would be rather vague.
Correct. Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
