Le 13/12/13 08:58, Jean-François Colson a écrit :
Le 13/12/13 08:33, Denis Jacquerye a écrit :
On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 10:06 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.
What if not every user of one form considers it wrong to use the
other form?
What if there’s evidence of use of both forms in those languages?
What if the users who consider the other shape wrong are unaware of
the history or variation of their own orthographies?
All those problems could be solved with variation selectors.
In the case of a disunification, you are compelled to choose one of
the two forms.
If variation sequences are preferred:
— those who consider a form is wrong simply use the VS associated with
the other form,
— and those who’re not bothered by that matter and wish more variation
might use the letter Ŋ without any VS.
Of course, the VS should be included in the keyboard driver.
About the history question, should I print my curriculum vitæ in
blackletter only because that writing style has been used in my country?
