[Humanist] 27.765 characters not in UniCode

Humanist Discussion Group willard.mccarty at mccarty.org.uk
Wed Feb 5 10:01:51 CET 2014


                 Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 27, No. 765.
            Department of Digital Humanities, King's College London
                       www.digitalhumanities.org/humanist
                Submit to: humanist at lists.digitalhumanities.org



        Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2014 11:21:35 -0600
        From: Laura Estill <lestill at gmail.com>
        Subject: Re:  27.760 stats software? early career stories? characters not in UniCode?
        In-Reply-To: <20140204084227.2C10D620B at digitalhumanities.org>


Dear Desmond (and all),

For a list of characters that aren't currently in Unicode, see the Medieval
Unicode Font Initiative (MUFI), which proposes new characters for inclusion
in Unicode.  This includes things like common scribal abbreviations, some
of which made the transition to print. It does, however, also include
ligatures and accents.  http://www.mufi.info

Best,
Laura

Dr. Laura Estill
Assistant Professor of English
Texas A&M University
Co-editor, World Shakespeare Bibliography
www.worldshakesbib.org

On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 2:42 AM, Humanist Discussion Group <
willard.mccarty at mccarty.org.uk> wrote:

>                  Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 27, No. 760.
>             Department of Digital Humanities, King's College London
>                        www.digitalhumanities.org/humanist
>                 Submit to: humanist at lists.digitalhumanities.org
>
> --[1]------------------------------------------------------------------------
>         Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2014 19:37:02 +1000
>         From: Desmond Schmidt <desmond.allan.schmidt at gmail.com>
>         Subject: Characters not available in UniCode
>
>
> Dear Humanist,
>
> I often hear it claimed that there are many characters in old texts,
> particularly in early printed books, that are not in UniCode. The 15th
> century printed texts I have seen are all early Greek editions, and indeed
> they do have many ligatures, particularly at the ends of words, but all of
> these in my limited experience transliterate as ordinary sequences of known
> characters. What I want to know is, does anyone know of any *characters* in
> early books written in languages claimed to be represented in UniCode, that
> are not already in the standard? I do not mean *glyphs* (character shapes),
> because strictly speaking their representation is the responsibility of the
> font designer, not of the character encoding standard. I refer on this
> point to the UniCode FAQ:
> http://www.unicode.org/faq/ligature_digraph.html
>
> yours in hope
>
> Desmond Schmidt
> Queensland University of Technology




More information about the Humanist mailing list