 |
 |
Andrew Cunningham wrote: > Hi > > 2009/12/17 stuart yeates <[log in to unmask]>: > >> If, however, you need to deal with characters which don't qualify for >> inclusion in Unicode (or which do qualify but which haven't yet been >> assigned code points). I recommend tei:glyph: >> >> http://www.tei-c.org/release/doc/tei-p5-doc/en/html/ref-glyph.html >> >> We use this to represent typographically interesting but short-lived >> approaches to the representation of Māori in printed works. See for example >> the 'wh' ligature (which looks like a 'vh' and is pronounced in modern usage >> like 'f') in the following text: > > an interesting approach, although not the only way to address that > particular issue. > > and depends on whether you want to treat it as a ligature or as a character. > > Other approaches have been to : > 1) use PUA assignments, e.g. the MUFI and SIL PUA > assignments/registries as examples; or > 2) use U+200D to request ligation On reflection, this is a subtly more general approach than our TEI one, since this allows new non-glyph characters to be introduced as well as new glyph characters. OTOH, there are a limited number of PUA code-points, a constraint that the TEI approach does not suffer. [For those unfamiliar with Unicode PUA mechanisms, see http://unicode.org/faq/casemap_charprop.html#8 and http://www.alanwood.net/unicode/private_use_area.html ] > Both these approaches would require specifically defined or modified fonts. In our case, when generating (X)HTML (our primary delivery formats) we substitute character images cut from page scans of the original documents. Generating the right HTML and CSS for this is non-trivial. cheers stuart -- Stuart Yeates http://www.nzetc.org/ New Zealand Electronic Text Centre http://researcharchive.vuw.ac.nz/ Institutional Repository