[Latingp] Digraphs

[Meikal Mumin]

Dear Chris and colleagues,

apologies for the late reply. I believe we don't need to exclude digraphs.
We could simply set them up as variants, e.g.  ij as equivalent of i + j. It
could be useful to verify with IP, if it is possible to declare a sequence
of two code-points as a variant of one - we had not encountered such a case
with Arabic script.

Best wishes,

Meikal

2016-03-29 9:54 GMT+02:00 Dillon, Chris <c.dillon at ucl.ac.uk>:

> Dear colleagues,
>
>
>
> Mirjana’s recent research on Montenegrin has raised some interesting
> issues.
>
>
>
> One of them is diagraphs.
>
> Currently we have digraphs like æ and œ in our repertoire, but Dutch ij
> (U+0133) as in vijf ‘five’ is white in MSR-2 (not compatible with IDNA
> 2008). Certainly many digraphs, including ij are visually similar to their
> component letters. We could consider adding all digraphs to the list of
> criteria for exclusion, or adding them with exceptions (less good from a
> usability point of view). Incidentally, ß and & are probably excluded for
> other reasons, Longevity Principle and Punctuation, respectively.
>
>
>
> What do you think?
>
>
>
> Français: Qu’est-ce qu’on devrait faire avec les digraphs dans notre
> répertoire – les permettre ou pas?
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Chris.
>
> ==
>
> Research Associate in Linguistic Computing, Centre for Digital Humanities,
> UCL, Gower St, London WC1E 6BT Tel +44 20 7679 1599 (int 31599)
> www.ucl.ac.uk/dis/people/chrisdillon
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Latingp mailing list
> Latingp at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/latingp
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/latingp/attachments/20160509/757084ac/attachment.html>