In the case of ɖ vs ð vs đ, there are three different letters, as follows from their names, that happen to have identical capital glyphs (those you've mentioned plus U+0110 LATIN CAPITAL LETTER D WITH STROKE).
Speaking of đ, "an alternate glyph with the stroke through the bowl is used in Americanist orthographies" without any [loud] cries about disunification. If N-Eng and n-Eng are disunified but small engs aren't (should they?), who keeps the "default" "toupper" conversion? > And while they are at it, I wouldn't refuse if they squared the circle. That's exactly right. Leo On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 2:52 PM, Asmus Freytag <[email protected]> wrote: > On 12/12/2013 2:25 PM, Leo Broukhis wrote: > > Hmmm... As a person with Russian as the first language I can assure you > that from any literate Russian-speaking person's perspective italic ū is an > unacceptable and *WRONG* representation of п (because in Russian, unlike > Serbian, there is й). Should we bother disunifying? > > > This example adds the issue of font style - because for styles other than > italic, the issue doesn't exist. I would take that as a stronger indication > that this is an issue that belongs in glyph space. > > > The fact that the lowercase letter is the same in both cases proves that > the difference between N-Eng and n-Eng is purely stylistic rather than > semantic. Unicode shouldn't bother with those minutia. > > > What about the reverse case, where the uppercase is the same and the lower > case isn't? > > There are precedents in Unicode where these have been disunified. > > U+00D0 LATIN CAPITAL LETTER ETH > U+0189 LATIN CAPITAL LETTER AFRICAN D > > look exactly identical. > > Precedents like this make the issue considerably less than clear cut, > > > > > I suppose nothing will happen until the governments of eng-using > countries come together with a proposal. > > Let's hope so. I wish they never do. > > > Lets hope they come together and endorse a solution that takes into > account not only rendering, but identifier security issues as well. And > while they are at it, I wouldn't refuse if they squared the circle. > > A./ > > > Leo > > > > On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 2:06 PM, Michael Everson <[email protected]>wrote: > >> On 12 Dec 2013, at 15:29, Leo Broukhis <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > Hasn't http://www.unicode.org/standard/where/#Variant_Shapes explained >> it once and for all? >> >> No, because users of N-shaped capital Eng consider n-shaped capital Eng >> to be *WRONG*, not an acceptable variant. And because n-shaped capital Eng >> consider N-shaped capital Eng to be *WRONG*, not an acceptable variant. >> >> Disunification is the best solution. >> >> I suppose nothing will happen until the governments of eng-using >> countries come together with a proposal. >> >> Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/ >> >> > >
