- First, many of these files were html-ed for early versions of browsers
which did not support many diacritics. When later browsers did render
diacritics properly, I thought it would be distractingly inconsistent to
include them in newer files.
- As no browsers yet render full diacritics (e.g., macrons, sub- and
super-dots) without implementation of custom fonts, there was precedent
for leaving off at least some diacritics.
- Another reason is simple practicality: I do not have the time to
include the commands for diacritics. While text-to-html converters will
add the html syntax for accents automatically, I do a great deal of
editing manually, and adding accents would require more time than I have
available.
- Many search engines do (or, at least, did) not support the input of
accents in search requests, and occasionally will not return results
accordingly: e.g., were one to search for "Baha'i," then words spelled as
"Bahá'í" will not always be found by the search request. As
internet users are more likely to input search requests without accents,
practicality suggested that they be left off of files here.
- Finally, many documents at this site lacked diacritics in the
original, and their posting here simply reflects that. Almost all
newspaper/magazine articles, Pilgrims' Notes, historical documents,
letters from the Universal House of Justice transmitted by email, and many
other types of files posted here had no diacritics in the original.
- There are some exceptions to the above. Pieces on this site
which are intended to be accurate facsimiles of original materials, such
as the Pilgrims' Notes, use diacritics where they were found in the
originals. Also, articles requiring philological accuracy, such as
Lambden's on "Bahá," include the requisite accenting.
- Apostrophes, used in standard Baha'i transliteration to represent both `ayn — ‘ — and hamza — ’ — are both rendered here by the straight apostrophe — ' .
|
