Le 09/01/2013 13:32, Michael Everson a écrit :
This example is obviously totally different, and too late to have any influence
on the encoding, but I think it might interest some reader of this list.
I don't see how it would "influence the encoding". It's just more evidence of
use in a different context.
My point was : this evidence could have increased the probability of
success of the proposal if it had been found earlier. But since the
character is already at the DAM stage, the probability of it to be
encoded is already close to 100%, so this evidence will not change this.
>However, it might also be an example of another character. If one compares the
green g's, the distinction between g U+0067 LATIN SMALL LETTER G and ɡ U+0261
LATIN SMALL LETTER SCRIPT G is clearly a glyph/font property in this text, as the
gⁱ in the text and the ɡⁱ in the equation just below below correspond to the same
physical quantity. This character could therefore be a * LATIN CAPITAL LETTER
SMALL G, a kind of symmetric character to ɢ U+0262 LATIN LETTER SMALL CAPITAL G.
The small capitals have independent existence in linguistics, but I would be
very surprised to find mathematicians making that distinction. More likely the
G and D are capitals.
I would be surprised too to find small caps in mathematical formulae,
and it is clearly not the case here.
My point is : in this text, this character is a capital letter which
look like a g. Since this text do not make the character distinction
between SMALL G and SCRIPT G, and treats them as glyph variants of SMALL
G, the character shown here might also be an unencoded character, a
"capital letter which looks likes a small g", accepting both open- and
closed-loop glyph variants. This the character I named LATIN CAPITAL
LETTER SMALL G, which is NOT a small capital, but rather the opposite of it.
