🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4363@undis.cs.chalmers.se> jeffrey@cs.chalmers.se (Alan Jeffrey) writes:
>In article <723@castor.linkoping.telesoft.se> ath@linkoping.telesoft.se (Anders Thulin) writes:
>>[...<oe> left out of Latin-1 due to its being dispensable?...>

>If Latin1 is proposed as a standard for (for instance) encoding the
>textual material of published books, it's going to have to cope with
>people (for example historians, or linguists, or lit. critters) who
>need to be able to quote texts from more than 30 years ago.  

True, but of minor relevance. 8859/1 was (as far as I understand it)
intended for interchange of modern langauges - obsolete and
obsolescent forms were not included. Is *that* why French <oe> isn't
there? (And is that why the y with dieresis is there?)

>Oh, and my Chambers 20th Century dictionary lists the following words
>beginning \ae\ or \oe\ which don't have ae and oe variants:
>
>   \ae sc              (the O.E. letter `ash' now written \ae!)
>   \oe il-de-b\oe uf   (a little round window)
>   \oe illade          (an ogle)
>
>None of these are marked as foreign or obsolete.  Of course this was
>eight years ago, things may be different now...

I'm almost sure you're joking now... 

I have no quarrel with <ae> - it's already in Latin-1. 

The two last words are obviously French (weren't they marked as such?),
which brings me back to the problem I'm really interested in: is <oe>
an indispensable character/glyph of French?

>>ligature really indispensable - I can't help thinking [ <oe> ] would
>>made its way into the Latin-1/... code tables if it was. 
>
>Hmm, an interesting idea---`if it was useful it would be in the
>standard'.  Ahh, if only ISO worked that way...

I can't help thinking that the Latin-1 code table as well as the
others must have been developed in close collaboration with the
national standard bodies. Since the French language appears to be
rather closely monitored I would expect very loud complaints from the
French national standards organizations if characters that were of
vital importance to the modern language weren't included *any* of the
Latin-n code tables, particularly the one that is claimed to cover the
most important Western languages.

Or don't they care? Perhaps there's a FRASCII which makes more sense
to use?)
-- 
Anders Thulin       ath@linkoping.telesoft.se 
Telesoft Europe AB, Teknikringen 2B, S-583 30 Linkoping, Sweden