2012/11/12 QSJN 4 UKR <qsjn4ukr at gmail dot com> wrote: > Old Cyrillic letter YEST (Є) has two variants: broad (also called > Yakornoye Yest) and narrow. They are saved in modern Ukrainian script > (only), where U+0404/0454 UKRAINIAN IE is used for the inherited BROAD > YEST and the modern, rectangle form of U+0415/0453 IE for the NARROW > YEST. Unicode Standard has a remark to use U+0404 for the Old Cyrillic > YEST, but it is unclear, how to distinguish the BROAD YEST and the > NARROW YEST. Unfortunately some fonts use U+0404/0454 for any YEST and > U+0415/0435 for the modern rectangle IE, some old-style fonts use only > the old YEST but with codepoint U+0415/0435 and do not use U+0404/0454 > at all, some use U+0404/0454 for the BROAD YEST and U+0415/0435 for > the NARROW YEST...
2012/11/23 Doug Ewell <d...@ewellic.org> >How many truly different letters, old and new, are we talking about? On >November 12 you >wrote, "UKRAINIAN IE and BROAD YEST is the same letter in >fact." It would not make >sense to assign a new BROAD YEST letter if it is >really the same as UKRAINIAN IE, and if >existing texts already use UKRAINIAN >IE to represent it. > Full picture Meaning - Glyph - Codepoint Old ChurchSlavonic: Narrow Yest (regular form) - very narrow halfmoon - 0404/0454 (ambiguous) and 0415/0435 (probably wrong glyph will be rendered) (there are no certain codepoints) Broad Yest (special form, initial, plural disambiguator) - broad halfmoon, identical to Ukrainian Ie or maybe somehow grater (broking baseline) - 0404/0454 indeed Modern imitation of Church Slavonic, or really old texts, or texts where hard to distinct Broad and Narrow Yest: Ambiguous Yest - identical to Ukrainian Ie or maybe like Narrow Yest (in old-style font) - 0404/0454 sure Modern languages: Ie - rectangle capital / closed rounded small (identical to Latin) - 0415/0435 Ukrainian Ie - identical to ambiguous Yest - 0404/0454 So there are two steps. First. Required. Separate codepoint for Narrow Yests. It is just impossible to work with ChurchSlavonic texts without these. Because: wrong glyph is rendered almost always (you must understand, we cant hope on language detection, cause the text contains certain the mix, old text with modern translation) - or - there is no way to show Broad Yest at all. Second. Optional. Separate codepoint for Broad Yests. That's only necessary if one part of text contains the ambiguous Yests (coded as now, 0404/0454, without changes!) but other part contains the Broad Yests and the author can/wants to show this feature. Am i the only man in the world who think that Unicode is poorly adapted for ChurchSlavonic? _______________________________________________ Unicode mailing list Unicode@unicode.org http://unicode.org/mailman/listinfo/unicode