I've got a question about a couple of typeforms. The issue is whether they can be considered glyph variants of existing chars (U+00d0 and U+01b7), or whether they should be considered distinct characters.
U+00D0: The glyph that appears in the code charts for U+00D0 is shown in LtnCapEth_DStrk.gif. Now, the African Reference Alphabet document that was produced at a conference in Niamey in 1978 proposeda small letter that looks like U+00F0 LATIN SMALL LETTER ETH, but the capital counterpart is like the glyph shown in LtnCapEthLrgSqLC.gif. This is quite different in appearance from the representative glyph for U+00D0. Should this be considered a glyph variant of U+00D0, or should it be considered a distinct character? U+01B7: The glyph that appears in the code charts is that shown in LtnCapEzh_LrgLC.gif. In the Dagbani language of Ghana, they use a small letter that looks like U+0292 LATIN SMALL LETTER EZH, but the capital counterpart that they use is like the glyph shown in LtnCapEzh_RevSigma.gif. This is quite different in appearance from the representative glyph for U+01B7. Should this be considered a glyph variant of U+01B7, or should it be considered a distinct character? - Peter --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Constable Non-Roman Script Initiative, SIL International 7500 W. Camp Wisdom Rd., Dallas, TX 75236, USA Tel: +1 972 708 7485
<<attachment: LtnCapEzh_RevSigma.gif>>
<<attachment: LtnCapEzh_LrgLC.gif>>
<<attachment: LtnCapEth_LrgSqLC.gif>>
<<attachment: LtnCapEth_DStrk.gif>>
