Am Donnerstag, 29. Mai 2003 um 23:56 schrieb Kenneth Whistler KW> António asked: >> I've just downloaded the PDF files with 4.0 additions (U40-*.pdf). One >> question: How is one supposed to tell apart the glyphs for U+1D29 and >> U+1D18?... Or one isn't?... ... KW> Visually, you usually couldn't, any more than you can tell KW> apart U+0050 LATIN CAPITAL LETTER P and U+03A1 GREEK CAPITAL KW> LETTER RHO in a typical, stylistically harmonized font.
KW> Don't ask me to vouch for and explain the vagaries of Uralic KW> notational practice, which I find alien. ;-) ... I share this feeling (e.g. looking at U+1D0F and U+1D11, imagining these near an U+006F on an 800x600 screen - clearly, the character GREEK LETTER SMALL CAPITAL OMICRON is missing). The question remains for what reason U+1D18 and U+1D29 are considered to be different due to a minimal semantic distance (usage for two different sounds, as "g" in "give" and "g" in "general" which are not encoded differently) in spite of their identical appearance (and U+1D29 is - despite of a Greek origin which applies also e.g. to U+0059 - no Greek letter as Greek is not an Uralic language). On the other hand, if someone proposes an "abbreviation dot" which has a far greater semantic distance to U+002E FULL STOP in the use implied by its name (closing sentence delimiter), and which has in some typography even a different appearance to the latter (somewhat smaller) - what comments would that evoke? - Karl
