<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 1/4/2021 5:21 PM, Richard Wordingham
via Unicode wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:20210105012103.2cd54343@JRWUBU2">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">On Mon, 4 Jan 2021 15:33:09 -0800
Ken Whistler via Unicode <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:unicode@unicode.org"><unicode@unicode.org></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">I'm guessing that a Danish language discussion of Old Polish would
not want to confuse the two, and should probably not be burdened with
unreliable language-tagged font variants for this particular
distinction. The barred-o forms (or phi forms), as discussed in the
proposal, look like font-deprived character substitutions, rather
than just a glyph variant within the range of original usage.
--Ken
On 1/4/2021 3:20 PM, Richard Wordingham via Unicode wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">Why isn't this letter just the Polish form of O WITH STROKE? Using
a font with the Scandinavian or IPA form appears to result in
legible text.
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
Figures 1 and 5 show phi and o-slash forms. Would a German discussion
of Old English have any problem with 'g' being used for the forerunner
of yogh? The printed forms of the Polish letter are distorted by the
highlighting - red circles would be more legible. The examples are
especially hard to locate in Figure 5.
Richard.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<p><font face="Candara">It seems clear that this letter has a range
of allographs in Polish that<br>
may overlap with the common glyphs for some other letters. That<br>
should not be the sole basis on which to propose a unification.</font></p>
<p><font face="Candara">A./<br>
<br>
</font><br>
</p>
</body>
</html>