Re: Eng (was: Name mangling)

On 12 Mar 2005, at 6.33 am, Ray Brown wrote:

> If you read my mail properly, you will see that - tho originally I had
> forgotten (senior moment) the 'incomplete D' version - what I was
> complaining about is a form that resembles *lower case h*, i.e. it has
> an
> *ascender*.  No other uppercase letter has an ascender.
You never said anything about it having an ascender in your original
mail, so I just interpreted it as meaning the 'incomplete D' form
(which I'm hoping is synonymous with 'like a large eng'). I've never
seen a form other than large eng and hooked N, so I didn't realise you
could be talking about anything else! I think it's likely that your
system is misconfigured somehow, but knowing computers you'll probably
never work it out...

My apologies; now I understand what you're talking about, I essentially
agree with you.

...

> Absolutely correct. So would it not be sensible in exactly the same
> way to
> allow for the two different well-esablished traditions for uppercase
> eng?
I'm not sure... There's only one codepoint for the two glyphs of a, and
various cyrillic letters have only one codepoint in spite of the two
different glyph forms (such as italic pe or italic te(?)). Not to
mention the myriad Japanese/traditional/simplified Chinese glyphs.
Clearly the Unicode consortium have some principles they want to
follow...

Frankly, I'm not sure how IPA g managed to get in. Probably an accident
somewhere that for reasons of backwards compatibility they can't get
rid of now.

--
Tristan.

Reply