<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 1/9/2021 11:08 AM, Asmus Freytag via
Unicode wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c448cee-f786-ff54-35b9-62ebd428cde5@ix.netcom.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 1/8/2021 4:14 PM, Richard
Wordingham via Unicode wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:20210109001459.35b3966a@JRWUBU2">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">On Mon, 4 Jan 2021 18:09:11 -0800
Asmus Freytag via Unicode <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:unicode@unicode.org" moz-do-not-send="true"><unicode@unicode.org></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">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.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">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.
Richard.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<p><font face="Candara">It seems that this <u><b>diacritic </b></u>has
a range of allographs in Polish <br>
that may overlap with the common glyphs for some other
diacritics<br>
That should not be the sole bases on which to propose a
unification.<br>
<br>
In addition, it appears that the shape is sometimes contracted
to that<br>
of a phi. That would be an allograph for the composite letter,
because<br>
phi is not decomposable. That also argues against unifying the
diacritics.<br>
</font></p>
</blockquote>
<font face="Candara">(Even if the "phi" allograph is ordinarily more
of a handwritten form, it<br>
may show up in "handwriting style" fonts, so the fact that is
would show <br>
perhaps only in certain styles is not a reason against considering
its impact<br>
on the putative encoding.)</font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c448cee-f786-ff54-35b9-62ebd428cde5@ix.netcom.com">
<p><font face="Candara"> <br>
Finally, the letter should be encoded as precomposed only, to
avoid the<br>
issues we've had for other characters where the "nominal"
diacritic <br>
indicated in the decomposition would force a shape that's not
compatible<br>
with the range of allographs.<br>
</font></p>
</blockquote>
<font face="Candara">PS: some of the allographs for the diacritic
strike me as something other than<br>
an "over-strike". The attached two sections or the partial
vertical over-strike <br>
of the top of the bowl only would normally not be decomposed,
because they<br>
are more like an "attached" diacritic than an overlay. This</font><font
face="Candara"><br>
further argues for not decomposing this character.</font>
<p><font face="Candara">A./<br>
</font></p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7c448cee-f786-ff54-35b9-62ebd428cde5@ix.netcom.com">
<p><font face="Candara"> <br>
A./<br>
</font></p>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
</body>
</html>