Draft proposal: Old Polish nasal vowel letter
asmusf at ix.netcom.com
Sat Jan 9 16:14:42 CST 2021
On 1/9/2021 11:08 AM, Asmus Freytag via Unicode wrote:
> On 1/8/2021 4:14 PM, Richard Wordingham via Unicode wrote:
>> On Mon, 4 Jan 2021 18:09:11 -0800
>> Asmus Freytag via Unicode<unicode at unicode.org> wrote:
>>> It seems clear that this letter has a range of allographs in Polish
>>> that may overlap with the common glyphs for some other letters. That
>>> should not be the sole basis on which to propose a unification.
>> The Polish letter is clearly a modified LATIN LETTER O. The diacritic
>> is a slash, and diacritics are unified on the basis of shape. The
>> debate should therefore be whether the slash is sufficiently different
>> from that of Danish - or combines sufficiently differently. Polish and
>> modern Greek acute accents are steeper than western European acute
>> accents, but are still unified.
> It seems that this _*diacritic *_has a range of allographs in Polish
> that may overlap with the common glyphs for some other diacritics
> That should not be the sole bases on which to propose a unification.
> In addition, it appears that the shape is sometimes contracted to that
> of a phi. That would be an allograph for the composite letter, because
> phi is not decomposable. That also argues against unifying the diacritics.
(Even if the "phi" allograph is ordinarily more of a handwritten form, it
may show up in "handwriting style" fonts, so the fact that is would show
perhaps only in certain styles is not a reason against considering its
on the putative encoding.)
> Finally, the letter should be encoded as precomposed only, to avoid the
> issues we've had for other characters where the "nominal" diacritic
> indicated in the decomposition would force a shape that's not compatible
> with the range of allographs.
PS: some of the allographs for the diacritic strike me as something
an "over-strike". The attached two sections or the partial vertical
of the top of the bowl only would normally not be decomposed, because they
are more like an "attached" diacritic than an overlay. This
further argues for not decomposing this character.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Unicode