<html>
<head>
<style>
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
FONT-SIZE: 10pt;
FONT-FAMILY:Tahoma
}
</style>
</head>
<body class='hmmessage'>
Doug, I do think in this case we should render the various spellings--with, without diacritic marks--in this case.<BR><BR><BR>> From: "Doug Ewell" <doug@ewellic.org><BR>> Kent Karlsson <kent dot karlsson14 at comhem dot se> wrote:<BR>> <BR>> > I do **NOT** agree with the position that removing diacritial marks <BR>> > would be "slightly different typography". It is a difference in <BR>> > spelling, much the same as differences in spelling that you excluded <BR>> > from your list ["(such as Kirghiz vs. Kyrgyz, or Dhivehi vs. Divehi)"] <BR>> > and thus want to keep as multiple names.<BR>> <BR>> Kent is right here, and I phrased that poorly. Of course, the presence <BR>> or absence of diacritical marks may (depending on language and writing <BR>> system) represent a change in spelling, or even meaning (Spanish 'ano' <BR>> vs. 'a?o').<BR>> <BR>> What I meant to point out was that diacritical marks are sometimes <BR>> removed, not as an intentional change in spelling, but rather as a <BR>> typographical convenience, or out of concern that the correct character <BR>> won't be available or rendered correctly. This may or may not be <BR>> justified given the circumstances.<BR> <BR>However if we can render these marks correctly then we should provide a spelling with them as well as Romanized spellings--all alternatives (if the spelling looks different from what I am used to seeing I get confused; I do not get so confused if I see two or three spellings and one looks exactly--marks and all (or absence of marks if I am used to browsers that do not render them)--like what I am used to seeing.<BR>> <BR>> --<BR>> Doug Ewell * Thornton, Colorado, USA * RFC 4645 * UTN #14<BR><BR> <BR>--C. E. Whitehead<BR><A href="mailto:cewcathar@hotmail.com">cewcathar@hotmail.com</A><BR> <BR></body>
</html>