DOCSLIB.ORG

Characters, Glyphs and Beyond / Tereza Haralambous, Yannis

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Characters, Glyphs and Beyond / Tereza Haralambous, Yannis 「書体・組版ワークショップ」報告書( Characters, Glyphs Title and Beyond / Tereza Haralambous, Yannis Haralambous [pdf] ) Author(s) Citation (2004) Issue Date 2004-02 URL http://hdl.handle.net/2433/65873 Right Type Conference Paper Textversion publisher Kyoto University Kyoto University 21st Century COE Program Characters, Glyphs and Beyond Tereza Haralambous and Yannis Haralambous Abstract The distinction between characters and glyphs is a fundamental issue of computing. This talk aims in giving a new definition of these notions. We first review and comment the definitions given in various standards. Then we give and explain our own definitions. We consider that the Unicode character model is lacunary and formulate a proposal for adding supplementary information and obtaining thus “rich Unicode characters.” We illustrate our arguments with many examples, taken from various writing systems. Keywords: character, glyph, language, writing system The distinction between characters and glyphs is W3C uses the ISO 9541 definition of glyph, proba- currently a very popular issue. The complexity of bly to be consistent with the only available standard this issue is, in some sense, related to the fact that on “Font information interchange.” The definition computer systems have been build by engineers not of “glyph” in Unicode is slightly different: a glyph very proficient in linguistics, and interested only in is “a shape that a character can have when rendered the English language. Exploring non-latin writing or displayed.” Notice two things: first, the fact that systems one realizes what has not been clear from the definition of glyph is based on the one of char- the beginning: that modelizing written language is acter, so if the first one is vague, the second one not a trivial task, and that it is fundamental to all is even more vague; secondly, the fact that there is exchange and processing of textual information. no distinction anymore between “glyph” and “glyph Let us start the exploration of this universe by image,” as in ISO 9541. We are now talking about giving some definitions of the terms we are using. shapes, and nothing else. There is an illustration in Let us see how the terms “character” and “glyph” the Unicode book which clearly shows glyphs corre- are defined. sponding to the same character, in different fonts. This shows that Unicode’s definition of a glyph is According to ISO 9541 [6] released in 1991, a rather the one of “glyph image” in ISO 9541. “glyph” is “a recognizable abstract graphic symbol which is independent of any specific design,” while a For whatever it is worth, the PDF Reference 1.4 “glyph image” is “an image of a glyph, as obtained (2001) [1], defines a character as “an abstract sym- from a glyph representation diplayed on a presenta- bol,” whereas a glyph is “a specific graphical ren- tion surface,” where “glyph representation” is “the dering of a character.” Once again we have a vague glyph shape and glyph metrics associated with a definition of character and a definition of glyph rely- specific glyph in a font resource.” We may argue if ing on it. After all, what is an “abstract symbol”? It this distinction between “abstract glyph” and “con- doesn’t give us a clue about why “A” is an “abstract crete glyph” is necessary, but this is how ISO 9541 symbol,” and not “fi.” defines these. Now let us give our own definition of character According to W3C (quoting “A Character Model and glyph [4, 5]. First of all, we believe that the for the World Wide Web” by Martin Drst and oth- best way to define these notions is going from glyph ers [2]), a character is “the smallest component of to character and not the other way around, as W3C written language that has semantic values; refers to and PDF are doing it. the abstract meaning and/or shape.” We find this For us, a glyph is “the image of a typographical definition quite vague since everything we perceive sign.” You may object why we use the term “typo- may or may not have semantic value, depending on graphical” in our definition. Well, typography has our culture, context and even mood. We all know been a first modelization of human writing. Books that Unicode is full of inconsistencies, because of its are based on this modelization (even if in some cul- requirement to be compatible with legacy encodings. tures books are still written by hand) and books are Has this definition been made to encompass Unicode the carriors of human culture. Computers are based weaknesses, and is therefore voluntarily vague? on this modelization. Typographical signs are uni- form, at least in the frame of a given book, or of sharing a few properties can be infinitely diverse. a given page. In such a narrow frame, the differ- We can say that a description is an equivalence class ences between typographical signs are microscopic, of glyphs: two glyphs will be equivalent if they fit this is not the case for hand writing. Of course if to a given description. for a given writing system there has never been any Our definition of a character is: “a character is typographical tradition, then we must amend our an equivalence class of glyphs, based on a simple, definition to something like: “a glyph is part of the linguistic or logical description.” image of written text, not too big and not too small, So if we say “LATIN CAPITAL LETTER A,” then we so that the given writing system can be obtained by describe a class of glyphs which can be interpreted an optimal sequence of these images, arranged in a as letter capital A in the Latin writing system. This regular way.” This apparently complex definition description is purely linguistic. is better explained as: “let us first try to modelize When we say “simple,” we mean that the descrip- the given written system as typography would have tion should be optimal in length: not too short, not done, and then let us take as glyphs the ones of our too long. When we say “linguistic or logical” we re- model.” But these kinds of writing systems are quite fer to the fact that characters can belong to writing exceptional, and they are not the main topic of our system for languages, but also to notation systems talk. (as for music, industrial design, trafic signs, mathe- So let us suppose that the writing systems we care matics, etc.). about are those who had already a typographical If we apply this definition very strictly, then quite tradition, be it a short one. Typographers are highly a few Unicode characters are not qualified to be intelligent creatures and have subdivided the image characters. For example “SPACE” is hardly a glyph, of text into small pieces which are not too big (in since it is an empty image. The description “SPACE” Latin script that would be “words”) and not too is even less a character since it is neither linguistic small (in Latin script that would be pieces of letters) nor logical, but graphical. But “SPACE” could also but just optimal in size and quantity (in Latin script be defined as the “word separation method” in Eu- that would be letters). We have based our definition ropean writing systems, which would qualify it as a of glyph on their work. character, since it is a purely linguistic description. What is then a character? Let us realize that What about “THIN SPACE” (which is Unicode when we see a glyph, we are interpreting it. If it be- character 2009)? This one is more hard to defend. longs to a writing system we know, then we have One could say that it is part of a notation system: some specific knowledge about it: how it is pro- the repertoire of lead types. In the frame of this nounced, how it gets combined with other glyphs, notation system, it has some logic, so it would make its numerical value, etc. If we are know proficient sense to call it a character. with the given writing system we can maybe still rec- One way to test if a glyph equivalence class qual- ognize it as belonging to that system, but no more. ifies as a character is to bypass graphical represen- Sometimes we cannot do even that. In that case tation of language and to think of what happens to our interpretation of the glyph focuses on its geo- these glyphs in systems like voice synthesis. “SPACE” metrical properties: is it a triangle, a circle, does it is absolutely essential in voice synthesis, since with- resemble to that or that glyph we know? out it, text would be impossible to understand. But Interpretation leeds to description. How do we “THIN SPACE” makes no sense whatsoever in voice describe a glyph? Take the glyph “A.” Some may synthesis. So there is a legitimate doubt about its say it is an open triangle with a bar in the middle, character essence. other will say it is a “Latin letter A,” other will say it is the mathematical “for all” operator which has Now let us see how characters and glyphs are used been inversed. Many descriptions can be given, but in computing. As we see on the drawing, humans use only a few are interesting to computing. keyboards to input text in computers. Keyboards Furthermore, a glyph description may fit to more refer to characters, but when we push on keystrokes than one glyphs. In fact, in most cases, it will be what we see on the screen is already a glyph. We appropriate to an infinity of glyphs, since the images see glyphs on screen, but what we store in a doc- 18 ument are characters.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Nl 6 1999-2000
    & ST. SHENOUDA COPTIC NEWSLETTER SUBSCRIBER'S EDITION Quarterly Newsletter Published by the St. Shenouda Center for Coptic Studies 1494 S. Robertson Blvd., Ste. 204, LA, CA 90035 Tel: (310) 271-8329 Fax: (310) 558-1863 Mailing Address: 1701 So. Wooster St. Los Angeles, CA 90035, U.S.A. October, 1999 Volume 6(N.S. 3), No. 1 In This Issue: The Second St. Shenouda Conference of Coptic Studies (4) by Hany N. Takla ............1 Conference Abstracts (2) by Hany N. Takla ...................................................................7 The 7th International Congress of Coptic Studies by Dr. J. van der Vliet......................10 A Tribute to Professor Paul van Moorsel by Dr. Mat Immerzeel ...................................12 News by Hany N. Takla ..................................................................................................14 The Second St. Shenouda Conference of Coptic StudiesNewsletter (August 13 - 14, 1999 - Los Angeles, California) (4) (by Hany N. Takla) Introduction: For a second time in as many years, scholar, Bishop Samuel of Shibin al-Qanatar, the Society held its annual Conference of Coptic Egypt. Notably present was Prof. James Robinson, Studies. This time it was held at, its probable the retired director of the Claremont Institute for permanent future site, the Campus of the CopticChristianity and Antiquity (ICA). University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA). Several of the presenters came from different parts As planned, this gathering brought together several of the United States: Prof. Boulos Ayad Ayad, segments of the population that had the common Boulder Co; Dr. Bastiaan Van Elderen, Grand interest of Coptic Studies. This mixture of the Haven MI; Dr. Fawzy Estafanous, Cleveland OH; young and old, the amateurs and professionals, and Mr.
    [Show full text]
  • On the Use of Coptic Numerals in Egypt in the 16 Th Century
    ON THE USE OF COPTIC NUMERALS IN EGYPT IN THE 16 TH CENTURY Mutsuo KAWATOKO* I. Introduction According to the researches, it is assumed that the culture of the early Islamic period in Egypt was very similar to the contemporary Coptic (Qibti)/ Byzantine (Rumi) culture. This is most evident in their language, especially in writing. It was mainly Greek and Coptic which adopted the letters deriving from Greek and Demotic. Thus, it was normal in those days for the official documents to be written in Greek, and, the others written in Coptic.(1) Gold, silver and copper coins were also minted imitating Byzantine Solidus (gold coin) and Follis (copper coin) and Sassanian Drahm (silver coin), and they were sometimes decorated with the representation of the religious legends, such as "Allahu", engraved in a blank space. In spite of such situation, around A. H. 79 (698), Caliph 'Abd al-Malik b. Marwan implemented the coinage reformation to promote Arabisation of coins, and in A. H. 87 (706), 'Abd Allahi b. 'Abd al-Malik, the governor- general of Egypt, pursued Arabisation of official documentation under a decree by Caliph Walid b. 'Abd al-Malik.(2) As a result, the Arabic letters came into the immediate use for the coin inscriptions and gradually for the official documents. However, when the figures were involved, the Greek or the Coptic numerals were used together with the Arabic letters.(3) The Abjad Arabic numerals were also created by assigning the numerical values to the Arabic alphabetic (abjad) letters just like the Greek numerals, but they did not spread very much.(4) It was in the latter half of the 8th century that the Indian numerals, generally regarded as the forerunners of the Arabic numerals, were introduced to the Islamic world.
    [Show full text]
  • Assessment of Options for Handling Full Unicode Character Encodings in MARC21 a Study for the Library of Congress
    1 Assessment of Options for Handling Full Unicode Character Encodings in MARC21 A Study for the Library of Congress Part 1: New Scripts Jack Cain Senior Consultant Trylus Computing, Toronto 1 Purpose This assessment intends to study the issues and make recommendations on the possible expansion of the character set repertoire for bibliographic records in MARC21 format. 1.1 “Encoding Scheme” vs. “Repertoire” An encoding scheme contains codes by which characters are represented in computer memory. These codes are organized according to a certain methodology called an encoding scheme. The list of all characters so encoded is referred to as the “repertoire” of characters in the given encoding schemes. For example, ASCII is one encoding scheme, perhaps the one best known to the average non-technical person in North America. “A”, “B”, & “C” are three characters in the repertoire of this encoding scheme. These three characters are assigned encodings 41, 42 & 43 in ASCII (expressed here in hexadecimal). 1.2 MARC8 "MARC8" is the term commonly used to refer both to the encoding scheme and its repertoire as used in MARC records up to 1998. The ‘8’ refers to the fact that, unlike Unicode which is a multi-byte per character code set, the MARC8 encoding scheme is principally made up of multiple one byte tables in which each character is encoded using a single 8 bit byte. (It also includes the EACC set which actually uses fixed length 3 bytes per character.) (For details on MARC8 and its specifications see: http://www.loc.gov/marc/.) MARC8 was introduced around 1968 and was initially limited to essentially Latin script only.
    [Show full text]
  • The Coptic Language
    The Coptic Language Introduction The Coptic (Egyptian) language is the fourth and final development of the ancient Egyptian language of the hieroglyphics. Much of the Scriptures and Christian literature at the time were translated into Coptic. During the tenure of the famous Pantaenus, dean of the Catechetical School of Alexandria in 190 A.D., the language evolved into its final stage as the standardized written grammatical, alphabetical and numerical linguistic system which is essentially the same as it is to this present day. Rich in breadth and depth, 2nd century Coptic scholars (Pantaenus and his disciples) translated the Holy Bible from its original Hebrew and Greek to Coptic. Soon it became the official language of Egypt as well as the language of the Church. As a matter of fact, the Coptic language was the real key to the deciphering of the Hieroglyphic and Demotic scripts by Champollion, who unlocked the secrets of the Rosetta stone. Facilitating the Development of Writing System The rapid development of the Egyptian writing system was facilitated by their discovery of methods to make paper and ink. Walter A. Fairservis, Jr. in his book Egypt; Gift of the Nile state s that, “One of the most important contributions made by ancient Egypt was papermaking. Paper was made from the papyrus plant that grows abundantly in the marshes of the Nile Valley. Before the Egyptians invented paper, writing was done on clay tablets, which crumble, or on stone, which is heavy and hard to carve. Unlike the rest of the ancient world, the Egyptians required only a brush and some ink, and they could easily carry these materials anywhere they want.” Donald Jackson in his book The Story of Writing also affirms that, “Indeed the marriage of liquid ink, pen and paper first brought about by the Egyptians was such a revolutionary step that it is still the fundamental bases of most handwritten communication today.” Source of Western Alphabet 1 / 5 The Coptic Language The Egyptians developed the Hieroglyphic Writing around 3000 B.C.
    [Show full text]
  • Proposals from the Script Encoding Initiative
    UC Berkeley Proposals from the Script Encoding Initiative Title Revision of the Coptic block under ballot for the BMP of the UCS Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/3408594m Authors Everson, Michael Emmel, Stephen Publication Date 2004-04-20 Peer reviewed eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California ISO/IEC JTC1/SC2/WG2 N2744 L2/04-130 2004-04-20 Universal Multiple-Octet Coded Character Set International Organization for Standardization Organisation Internationale de Normalisation Международная организация по стандартизации Doc Type: Working Group Document Title: Revision of the Coptic block under ballot for the BMP of the UCS Source: Michael Everson and Stephen Emmel Status: Individual Contribution Action: For consideration by JTC1/SC2/WG2 and UTC Date: 2004-04-20 This document requests additional characters to be added to the UCS and contains the proposal summary form. It replaces contains characters accepted in N2636 along with additional characters and rationale for their inclusion. A. Administrative 1. Title Revision of the Coptic under ballot for the BMP of the UCS. 2. Requesterʼs name Michael Everson and Stephen Emmel 3. Requester type (Member body/Liaison/Individual contribution) Individual contribution. 4. Submission date 2004-04-20 5. Requesterʼs reference (if applicable) NN2611 (2003-08024), N2444 (2002-05-08), N2636 6. Choose one of the following: 6a. This is a complete proposal Yes. 6b. More information will be provided later No. B. Technical – General 1. Choose one of the following: 1a. This proposal is for a new script (set of characters) No, but it is a proposal for a new block of Coptic characters.
    [Show full text]
  • Unicode Characters in Proofpower Through Lualatex
    Unicode Characters in ProofPower through Lualatex Roger Bishop Jones Abstract This document serves to establish what characters render like in utf8 ProofPower documents prepared using lualatex. Created 2019 http://www.rbjones.com/rbjpub/pp/doc/t055.pdf © Roger Bishop Jones; Licenced under Gnu LGPL Contents 1 Prelude 2 2 Changes 2 2.1 Recent Changes .......................................... 2 2.2 Changes Under Consideration ................................... 2 2.3 Issues ............................................... 2 3 Introduction 3 4 Mathematical operators and symbols in Unicode 3 5 Dedicated blocks 3 5.1 Mathematical Operators block .................................. 3 5.2 Supplemental Mathematical Operators block ........................... 4 5.3 Mathematical Alphanumeric Symbols block ........................... 4 5.4 Letterlike Symbols block ..................................... 6 5.5 Miscellaneous Mathematical Symbols-A block .......................... 7 5.6 Miscellaneous Mathematical Symbols-B block .......................... 7 5.7 Miscellaneous Technical block .................................. 7 5.8 Geometric Shapes block ...................................... 8 5.9 Miscellaneous Symbols and Arrows block ............................. 9 5.10 Arrows block ........................................... 9 5.11 Supplemental Arrows-A block .................................. 10 5.12 Supplemental Arrows-B block ................................... 10 5.13 Combining Diacritical Marks for Symbols block ......................... 11 5.14
    [Show full text]
  • A. Administrative 1
    ISO/IEC JTC1/SC2/WG2 N2744 L2/04-130 2004-04-20 Universal Multiple-Octet Coded Character Set International Organization for Standardization Organisation Internationale de Normalisation Международная организация по стандартизации Doc Type: Working Group Document Title: Revision of the Coptic block under ballot for the BMP of the UCS Source: Michael Everson and Stephen Emmel Status: Individual Contribution Action: For consideration by JTC1/SC2/WG2 and UTC Date: 2004-04-20 This document requests additional characters to be added to the UCS and contains the proposal summary form. It replaces contains characters accepted in N2636 along with additional characters and rationale for their inclusion. A. Administrative 1. Title Revision of the Coptic under ballot for the BMP of the UCS. 2. Requesterʼs name Michael Everson and Stephen Emmel 3. Requester type (Member body/Liaison/Individual contribution) Individual contribution. 4. Submission date 2004-04-20 5. Requesterʼs reference (if applicable) NN2611 (2003-08024), N2444 (2002-05-08), N2636 6. Choose one of the following: 6a. This is a complete proposal Yes. 6b. More information will be provided later No. B. Technical – General 1. Choose one of the following: 1a. This proposal is for a new script (set of characters) No, but it is a proposal for a new block of Coptic characters. Proposed name of script Coptic 1b. The proposal is for addition of character(s) to an existing block No. 1b. Name of the existing block 2. Number of characters in proposal 114 3. Proposed category (see section II, Character Categories) Category A 4a. Proposed Level of Implementation (1, 2 or 3) (see clause 14, ISO/IEC 10646-1: 2000) Level 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Greek and Coptic Range: 0370–03FF the Unicode Standard, Version 4.0
    Greek and Coptic Range: 0370–03FF The Unicode Standard, Version 4.0 This file contains an excerpt from the character code tables and list of character names for The Unicode Standard, Version 4.0. Characters in this chart that are new for The Unicode Standard, Version 4.0 are shown in conjunction with any existing characters. For ease of reference, the new characters have been highlighted in the chart grid and in the names list. This file will not be updated with errata, or when additional characters are assigned to the Unicode Standard. See http://www.unicode.org/charts for access to a complete list of the latest character charts. Disclaimer These charts are provided as the on-line reference to the character contents of the Unicode Standard, Version 4.0 but do not provide all the information needed to fully support individual scripts using the Unicode Standard. For a complete understanding of the use of the characters contained in this excerpt file, please consult the appropriate sections of The Unicode Standard, Version 4.0 (ISBN 0-321-18578-1), as well as Unicode Standard Annexes #9, #11, #14, #15, #24 and #29, the other Unicode Technical Reports and the Unicode Character Database, which are available on-line. See http://www.unicode.org/Public/UNIDATA/UCD.html and http://www.unicode.org/unicode/reports A thorough understanding of the information contained in these additional sources is required for a successful implementation. Fonts The shapes of the reference glyphs used in these code charts are not prescriptive. Considerable variation is to be expected in actual fonts.
    [Show full text]
  • Dejavusansmono-Bold.Ttf [Dejavu Sans Mono Bold]
    DejaVuSerif.ttf [DejaVu Serif] [DejaVu Serif] Basic Latin, Latin-1 Supplement, Latin Extended-A, Latin Extended-B, IPA Extensions, Phonetic Extensions, Phonetic Extensions Supplement, Spacing Modifier Letters, Modifier Tone Letters, Combining Diacritical Marks, Combining Diacritical Marks Supplement, Greek And Coptic, Cyrillic, Cyrillic Supplement, Cyrillic Extended-A, Cyrillic Extended-B, Armenian, Thai, Georgian, Georgian Supplement, Latin Extended Additional, Latin Extended-C, Latin Extended-D, Greek Extended, General Punctuation, Supplemental Punctuation, Superscripts And Subscripts, Currency Symbols, Letterlike Symbols, Number Forms, Arrows, Supplemental Arrows-A, Supplemental Arrows-B, Miscellaneous Symbols and Arrows, Mathematical Operators, Supplemental Mathematical Operators, Miscellaneous Mathematical Symbols-A, Miscellaneous Mathematical Symbols-B, Miscellaneous Technical, Control Pictures, Box Drawing, Block Elements, Geometric Shapes, Miscellaneous Symbols, Dingbats, Non- Plane 0, Private Use Area (plane 0), Alphabetic Presentation Forms, Specials, Braille Patterns, Mathematical Alphanumeric Symbols, Variation Selectors, Variation Selectors Supplement DejaVuSansMono.ttf [DejaVu Sans Mono] [DejaVu Sans Mono] Basic Latin, Latin-1 Supplement, Latin Extended-A, Latin Extended-B, IPA Extensions, Phonetic Extensions, Phonetic Extensions Supplement, Spacing Modifier Letters, Modifier Tone Letters, Combining Diacritical Marks, Combining Diacritical Marks Supplement, Greek And Coptic, Cyrillic, Cyrillic Supplement, Cyrillic Extended-A,
    [Show full text]
  • Greek and Coptic Range: 0370–03FF
    Greek and Coptic Range: 0370–03FF This file contains an excerpt from the character code tables and list of character names for The Unicode Standard, Version 14.0 This file may be changed at any time without notice to reflect errata or other updates to the Unicode Standard. See https://www.unicode.org/errata/ for an up-to-date list of errata. See https://www.unicode.org/charts/ for access to a complete list of the latest character code charts. See https://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/Unicode-14.0/ for charts showing only the characters added in Unicode 14.0. See https://www.unicode.org/Public/14.0.0/charts/ for a complete archived file of character code charts for Unicode 14.0. Disclaimer These charts are provided as the online reference to the character contents of the Unicode Standard, Version 14.0 but do not provide all the information needed to fully support individual scripts using the Unicode Standard. For a complete understanding of the use of the characters contained in this file, please consult the appropriate sections of The Unicode Standard, Version 14.0, online at https://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode14.0.0/, as well as Unicode Standard Annexes #9, #11, #14, #15, #24, #29, #31, #34, #38, #41, #42, #44, #45, and #50, the other Unicode Technical Reports and Standards, and the Unicode Character Database, which are available online. See https://www.unicode.org/ucd/ and https://www.unicode.org/reports/ A thorough understanding of the information contained in these additional sources is required for a successful implementation.
    [Show full text]
  • UC Irvine Unicode Project
    UC Irvine Unicode Project Title A proposal to encode the Greek Letter San in UCS Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/0v90j291 Author Thesaurus Linguae Graecae Project Publication Date 2003-03-10 eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California L2/02-313R PROPOSAL SUMMARY FORM A. Administrative 1. Title: Proposal to encode the Greek Capital Letter San and Greek Small Letter San in the UCS 2. Requester's name: Thesaurus Linguae Graecae Project (University of California, Irvine) 3. Requester type: Expert contribution 4. Submission date: 2002-11-07 5. Requester's reference: 6. Completion: This is a complete proposal. B. Technical - General 1. The proposal is for addition of character(s) to an existing block: Greek and Coptic (proposed positions: U+03FA and U+03FB) 2. Number of characters in proposal: Two 3. Proposed category: C 4. Proposed Level of Implementation: Level 1 5a. Character name provided? Yes 5b. Character name in accordance with guidelines: Yes 5c. Character shape reviewable? Yes 6a. Who will provide the appropriate computerized font for publishing the standard? David Perry and the TLG Project 6b. Font currently available? Yes. 6c. Font format: True Type 7a. Are references provided? Yes. 7b. Are published examples of use of proposed character attached? Yes. 8. Does the proposal address other aspects of character data processing? No. C. Technical - Justification 1. Has this proposal for addition of character(s) been submitted before? No. 2. Has contact been made to members of the user community? Yes. Proposal was posted to the TLG web site and received comments from a number of experts.
    [Show full text]
  • Proposal to Add Additional Characters for Greek, Latin, and Coptic to the UCS Source: Michael Everson, Stephen Emmel (Universität Münster), Siegfried G
    ISO/IEC JTC1/SC2/WG2 N3873R L2/10-290R 2010-08-05 Universal Multiple-Octet Coded Character Set International Organization for Standardization Organisation internationale de normalisation Международная организация по стандартизации Doc Type: Working Group Document Title: Proposal to add additional characters for Greek, Latin, and Coptic to the UCS Source: Michael Everson, Stephen Emmel (Universität Münster), Siegfried G. Richter (Institut für die Neutestamentliche Textforschung, Universität Münster), Susana Pedro (Faculdade de Letras da Universidade de Lisboa), António Emiliano (Faculdade de Ciências Sociais e Humanas da Universidade Nova de Lisboa) Status: Individual Contribution Action: For consideration by JTC1/SC2/WG2 and UTC Date: 2010-08-05 0. Introduction. This proposal requests two additional letters for Coptic, and three generic punctuation marks for use with (at least) Coptic, Greek, and Latin, and a symbol with a special function in Coptic linguistics. If this proposal is accepted, the following characters will exist: Ⳳ 2CF2 COPTIC CAPITAL LETTER BOHAIRIC KHEI Ϧ 03E6 coptic capital letter khei ⳳ 2CF3 COPTIC SMALL LETTER BOHAIRIC KHEI ϧ 03E7 coptic small letter khei ⸼ 2E3C RAISED DOT . 002E full stop · 00B7 middle dot ⸽ 2E3D RAISED COMMA , 002C comma · 00B7 middle dot ⸾ 2E3E MIDDLE COMMA , 002C comma · 00B7 middle dot ⸿ 2E3F SMALL RAISED DAGGER † 2020 dagger 1. Additional letters for Coptic. A large number of Coptic manuscripts and printed books distinguish between two different forms of the letter KHEI. One is encoded as Ϧ ϧ COPTIC LETTER KHEI at U+03E6–U+03E7. In order to represent the orthography of these texts explicitly, Ⳳ ⳳ COPTIC LETTER BOHAIRIC KHEI is proposed for encoding here at U+2CF2–U+2CF3.
    [Show full text]