On 4 Dec 2000, at 12:23, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote: > Also, making the simplification Russian eq Cyrillic is not right. > There are I think dozens of nations/languages, ethnic groups, etc, > using Cyrillic. Quite so. And "Cyrillic" ne "those Cyrillic letters used in Russian"; it's even more than those in such collections as WGL4 (which includes such things as Byelorussian U-breve, Macedonian K-acute, Ukrainian G-with-upturn, and Serbian lj and nj) -- the standard work (AFAIK), Musaev's "Alfavity yazykov narodov SSSR" lists alphabets for quite a few languages spoken on the former USSR, with such letters as T-TS ligature, ZH-diaeresis, shwa, h, and "Abkhazian h" which looks like a cursive Danish ae-ligature. (I'm not an expert, but some of the letters Musaev mentions appear not to be in Unicode, unless you consider them glyph variants of other latters; for example, he appears to distinguish between GHE-with-complete-stroke and GHE-with-right- half-stroke, while the Unicode book only has a glyph GHE-with- complete-stroke. I'm slowly copying Musaev's book for my private reference; at the moment, it's in Word97 format using Unicode, using the Code2000 font for the more exotic characters. The point being (for the p5p list), I suppose, is that even if you have a "perfect", language-independent way of transliterating Cyrillic, if your scheme just does the "major" Cyrillic-using languages (say, Russian, Belorussian, Ukrainian, Macedonian, and Serbian), then it's not complete. It also needs to do Bashkir, Azerbaidjani, Khanti, &c. Cheers, Philip -- Philip Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
