Khaled Hosny wrote:
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 12:21:12AM +0200, Mojca Miklavec wrote:
Arthur also reminded me that one might want to treat scedilla and scommaaccent as equivalent characters for Romanian,
Lately, I've been told that Romanians are now strongly against this scedilla=scommaaccent thing being legacy artifact, and that continuing to support it is causing harm than good.
I don't think it's up to us (the TeX/XeTeX/LuaTeX/hyphenation community) to police such things : if Unicode implements this equivalence relationship then so should we. Part of the specification currently reads :
In Turkish and Romanian, a cedilla and a comma below sometimes replace one another depending on the font style, as shown in example 4 in Figure 7-1. The form with the cedilla is preferred in Turkish, and the form with the comma below is preferred in Romanian. The characters with explicit commas below are provided to permit the distinction from characters with a cedilla. Legacy encodings for these characters contain only a single form of each of these characters. ISO/IEC 8859-2 maps these to the form with the cedilla, while ISO/IEC 8859-16 maps them to the form with the comma below. Migrating Romanian 8-bit data to Unicode should be done with care.
In general, characters with cedillas or ogoneks below are subject to variable typographical usage, depending on the availability and quality of fonts used, the technology, and the geographic area. Various hooks, commas, and squiggles may be substituted for the nominal forms of these diacritics below, and even the directions of the hooks may be reversed. Implementers should become familiar with particular typographical traditions before assuming that characters are missing or are wrongly represented in the code charts in the Unicode Standard.
** Phil. -------------------------------------------------- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
