<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 12/16/2020 12:09 PM, Marius Spix via
Unicode wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:trinity-5bc955d3-52e6-4557-bff0-ab8dc8742e48-1608149363157@3c-app-webde-bs49">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div style="font-family: Verdana;font-size: 12.0px;">
<div>Latin also has letter variants like <span class="aCOpRe"><span>single-storey
and double-storey g, single-decker and double-decker a,
overlapped (Wikipedia-style) and non-overlapped W, </span></span>bisected
Q, joined Q, unjoined Q, single stroke Q, inside Q<span
class="aCOpRe"><span>, curly Q and many more. This is known
as allography. Those characters have no distinct
codepoints (</span></span>U+0251 and U+0261 are special
characters for used in the IPA). You can set different glyph
variants with OpenType.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Unicode unifies allographs by default.</p>
<p>However, when characters are used outside standard orthographies
(IPA) or as part of a symbolic notation (Math) certain shape
variations have distinct identities and can't be treated as
allographs,.</p>
<p>Because Unicode caters to both types of usage (standard
orthographies as well as notational systems) some disunification
happens to what would normally be allographs. This disunification
should only be applied in the context of the given notational
system, but (playful) abuse is rampant.</p>
<p>However, playful abuse isn't a factor in favor of further
disunification. . . .</p>
<p>A./<br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:trinity-5bc955d3-52e6-4557-bff0-ab8dc8742e48-1608149363157@3c-app-webde-bs49">
<div style="font-family: Verdana;font-size: 12.0px;">
<div>
<div>
<div name="quote" style="margin:10px 5px 5px 10px; padding:
10px 0 10px 10px; border-left:2px solid #C3D9E5;
word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space;
-webkit-line-break: after-white-space;">
<div style="margin:0 0 10px 0;"><b>Gesendet:</b> Mittwoch,
16. Dezember 2020 um 19:05 Uhr<br>
<b>Von:</b> "Doug Ewell via Unicode"
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:unicode@unicode.org"><unicode@unicode.org></a><br>
<b>An:</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:unicode@unicode.org">unicode@unicode.org</a><br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:abrahamgross@disroot.org">abrahamgross@disroot.org</a><br>
<b>Betreff:</b> RE: Italics get used to express
important semantic meaning, so unicode should support
them</div>
<div name="quoted-content">abrahamgross wrote:<br>
<br>
>> Children learn to write with upper case and
lower case letters in<br>
>> school, and most people continue to use both as
adults. (There are<br>
>> exceptions of course, some people write only
with lower case, and<br>
>> some only with upper case.)<br>
><br>
> Unicode refused to encode arabic letter variants
(not counting<br>
> compatibility chars), which are taught in school
and adults use it,<br>
> and its how arabic is written, so ur argument here
doesn't hold water.<br>
<br>
I'm not sure what to make of that sentence. That's like
saying "Unicode refused to encode the capital letter A
(not counting U+0041)."<br>
<br>
The compatibility characters are exactly how one is
supposed to represent Arabic letter forms outside of
their normal context, as described here.<br>
<br>
--<br>
Doug Ewell, CC, ALB | Thornton, CO, US | ewellic.org<br>
<br>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
</body>
</html>