Hello.
> > Would it be possible to define the U+FE00 variant sequence for a
with
> > two dots above it to be a with an e above it, and similarly U+FE00
> > variant sequences for o with two dots above it and for u with two
dots
> > above it, and possibly for e with two dots above it as well?
Even
William Overington
wrote:
> Would it be possible to define the U+FE00 variant sequence for a with
> two dots above it to be a with an e above it, and similarly U+FE00
> variant sequences for o with two dots above it and for u with two dots
> above it, and possibly for e with two dots above it as
In Unicode code point U+308 is applied to COMBINING DIAERESIS.
There are a number of precomposed forms with diaeresis.
Let's take one of these, ü:
The diaeresis may mean separate pronunication of the u, indicating it is not merged with preceding
of following letter but is pronounced disti
(After sending this unadvertedly to Dominikus only, here's
for the list also...) On 2002.10.30, 16:26, Dominikus Scherkl
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A font representing my mothers handwriting (german only :-) would
> render "u" as "u with breve above" to distinguish it from the
> representation o
At 08:32 31.10.2002 -0800, Doug Ewell wrote:
Adam Twardoch wrote:
>> Should an English language font render ö as oe, so that Göthe
>> appears automatically in the more normal English form Goethe?
>
> If you refer to Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, his name is *not* spelled
> with an "ö" anyway.
Adam Twardoch wrote:
>> Should an English language font render ö as oe, so that Göthe
>> appears automatically in the more normal English form Goethe?
>
> If you refer to Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, his name is *not* spelled
> with an "ö" anyway.
Somebody thinks so:
http://www.transkription
Let me take a few comparable examples;
1. Some (I think font makers) a few years ago argued
that the Lithuanian i-dot-circumflex was just a
glyph variant (Lithuanian specific) of i-circumflex,
and a few other similar characters.
Still, the Unicode standard now does not regard those a
This is not a typographic decision, it is a spelling decision,
and not up to the font designer, I'd say. It is a typographic
decision whether the diaeresis "digs into" the glyph below, or if
an e-above looks like a capital e inside. But spelling changes,
whether transient or permanent, should
On Wed, Oct 30, 2002 at 10:53:10AM -0500, Alain LaBonté wrote:
> [Alain] However I agree with Kent. Let's say a text identified as German
> quotes a French word with an U DIAERESIS *in the German text* (a word like
> "capharnaüm"). It would be a heresy to show a macron in a printed text in
> t
Kent Karlsson wrote:
> > I insist that you can talk about character-to-character
> > mappings only when
> > the so-called "backing store" is affected in some way.
>
> No, why? It is perfectly permissible to do the equivalent
> of "print(to_upper(mystring))" without changing the backing
> store (
I said:
> Ah! I never realized that the Sütterlin zig-zag-shaped "e"
> was the missing with the "¨" glyph!
^
Sorry: "... the missing LINK with ...".
_ Marco
Doug Ewell wrote:
> Actually, the Sütterlin umlaut-mark is a small italicized
> "e," which is very similar to an "n." What it really
> ends up looking like, from a distance, is a double acute.
Ah! I never realized that the Sütterlin zig-zag-shaped "e" was the missing
with the "¨" glyph!
Thanks!
At 17:57 +0100 2002-10-30, Kent Karlsson wrote:
> 1. We have all seen examples, in print, in signage, and in
handwriting of German umlauts being displayed in each of those ways.
Obviously the underlying encoding of them is the same, as is the
intent.
The underlying encoding *may* be the sa
Alain LaBonté wrote:
> [Alain] However I agree with Kent. Let's say a text
> identified as German quotes a French word with an
> U DIAERESIS *in the German text* (a word like
> "capharnaüm").
A Fraktur font designed solely for German should not be used for typesetting
French words. (And, BTW, th
Hello Doug,
DE> Actually, the Sütterlin umlaut-mark is a small italicized "e,"
DE> which is very similar to an "n." What it really ends up looking
DE> like, from a distance, is a double acute. [...] Sütterlin does use
DE> a macron over "m" and "n" to indicate that the letter should be
DE> doubled,
> Sütterlin does use a macron over "m" and "n" to indicate that
> the letter should be doubled
So should a Sütterlin font then by default replace mm with an m-macron
glyph? Or should the "author" decide which orthography to use?
/Kent K
Doug Ewell scripsit:
> Actually, the Sütterlin umlaut-mark is a small italicized "e," which is
> very similar to an "n." What it really ends up looking like, from a
> distance, is a double acute.
Oops, yes. Brain fart.
> Sütterlin does use a macron over "m" and "n" to indicate that the lette
> >Marco: It is o.k. (in a German-specific context) to display
> >an umlaut as a macron (or a tilde, or a little e above),
> >since that is what Germans do.
> >
> >Kent: It is *not* o.k. -- that constitutes changing a character.
>
> Kent can't be right here.
>
> 1. We have all see
> I insist that you can talk about character-to-character
> mappings only when
> the so-called "backing store" is affected in some way.
No, why? It is perfectly permissible to do the equivalent
of "print(to_upper(mystring))" without changing the backing
store ("mystring" in the pseudocode); to_
At 10:54 -0500 2002-10-30, Alain LaBontÈÝ wrote:
A 22:21 2002-10-29 +, Michael Everson a écrit :
At 15:56 -0600 2002-10-29, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is it complaint with Unicode to have a font where a-umlaut has a glyph of
a with e above? What about a glyph of a-macron (e.g. a handwriting
> [Alain] However I agree with Kent. Let's say a text
> identified as German quotes a French word with an
> U DIAERESIS *in the German text* (a word like "capharnaüm").
> It would be a heresy to show a macron in a printed text in
> this context.
Hm.
A font representing my mothers handwriting (ge
At 10:53 -0500 2002-10-30, Alain LaBontÈÝ wrote:
A 21:46 2002-10-29 +, Michael Everson a écrit :
At 13:27 -0800 2002-10-29, Kenneth Whistler wrote:
Michael asked:
My eyes have glazed over reading this discussion. What am I being
asked to agree with?
Here's the executive summary for tho
John Cowan wrote:
> If I find your Suetterlin font unreadable, however, and switch to an
> Antiqua font to read your German, I expect to find the text littered
> with diaereses, not macrons, although the Suetterlin umlaut-mark looks
> pretty much like a macron.
Actually, the Sütterlin umlaut-ma
A 22:21 2002-10-29 +, Michael Everson a écrit :
At 15:56 -0600 2002-10-29, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is it complaint with Unicode to have a font where a-umlaut has a glyph of
a with e above? What about a glyph of a-macron (e.g. a handwriting font
for someone who writes a-umlaut that way)?
O
A 21:46 2002-10-29 +, Michael Everson a écrit :
At 13:27 -0800 2002-10-29, Kenneth Whistler wrote:
Michael asked:
My eyes have glazed over reading this discussion. What am I being
asked to agree with?
Here's the executive summary for those without the time to
plow through the longer exc
Jim Allan scripsit:
> There has never been anything wrong with using a hack when required for
> a task at hand. But hacks of this kind that, if followed up widely in
> many fonts in many languages, would produce a chaos of interpretations
> and numerous fonts only suited for particular language
Summary:
Would it be possible to define the U+FE00 variant sequence for a with two
dots above it to be a with an e above it, and similarly U+FE00 variant
sequences for o with two dots above it and for u with two dots above it, and
possibly for e with two dots above it as well?
I may not have got
Keld Jørn Simonsen wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 09:07:16PM +0100, Marco Cimarosti wrote:
> > Kent Karlsson wrote:
> > > Marco,
> >
> > Keld, please allow me to begin with the end of your post:
>
> I really have not contributed much to this thread, I think you mean
> "Kent".
Oh No! Again! Ap
Two very simple principles can resolve this issue:
1. Encode text using characters that accurately carry the semantic meaning
of the text and which enable text standardised text processing functions
such as sorting, spellchecking and searching.
2. Display the text by selecting a font that provi
On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 08:53:59PM -0500, Jim Allan wrote:
> Using the Unicode method makes far more sense than creating fonts that
> work for particular languages only, provided no foreign words or names
> appear, or which require language tagging.
Why does the Unicode method exclude creating f
> Do we again need an intelligent font that understands language tagging?
This should be achievable with OpenType, no?
> Do we now have different flavors of Unicocde, one for English, one for
Icelandic, one for French, one for German ... ?
In most of the cases described be you, you can still hav
The Old Icelandic character ǫ (Unicode U+01ED: LATIN SMALL LETTER
O WITH OGONEK) is replaced in modern Icelandic by
ö.
Would it be proper therefore
to represent U+00F6, the code point which Marco Cimarosti wants to use for
o with circumflex e, also for o with ogonek?
In Icelandic they cou
At 14:56 10/29/2002, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is it complaint with Unicode to have a font where a-umlaut has a glyph of
a with e above? What about a glyph of a-macron (e.g. a handwriting font
for someone who writes a-umlaut that way)?
Yes, I would say that it is compliant with Unicode because t
On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 09:07:16PM +0100, Marco Cimarosti wrote:
> Kent Karlsson wrote:
> > Marco,
>
> Keld, please allow me to begin with the end of your post:
I really have not contributed much to this thread, I think you mean
"Kent".
Best regards
keld
At 15:56 -0600 2002-10-29, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is it complaint with Unicode to have a font where a-umlaut has a glyph of
a with e above? What about a glyph of a-macron (e.g. a handwriting
font for someone who writes a-umlaut that way)?
Of course it is. Glyphs are informative.
--
Michael Ev
>At 21:07 +0100 2002-10-29, Marco Cimarosti wrote:
>
>> > I'm sure Michael would agree too (at least I hope so), and many others.
>>
>>There are many Michaels and many "others" here... If any of them wish to
>>intervene, I hope they'll rather say something new to take the discussion
>>out of the l
At 13:27 -0800 2002-10-29, Kenneth Whistler wrote:
Michael asked:
My eyes have glazed over reading this discussion. What am I being
asked to agree with?
Here's the executive summary for those without the time to
plow through the longer exchange:
Marco: It is o.k. (in a German-specific conte
Michael asked:
> My eyes have glazed over reading this discussion. What am I being
> asked to agree with?
Here's the executive summary for those without the time to
plow through the longer exchange:
Marco: It is o.k. (in a German-specific context) to display
an umlaut as a macron (or a t
At 21:07 +0100 2002-10-29, Marco Cimarosti wrote:
> I'm sure Michael would agree too (at least I hope so), and many others.
There are many Michaels and many "others" here... If any of them wish to
intervene, I hope they'll rather say something new to take the discussion
out of the loop, rather
> Standard orthography, and orthography that someone may
>choose to use on a sign, or in handwriting, are often not
>the same.
If someone's writes an a-umlaut, no matter what it looks,
it should be encoded as an a-umlaut. That's the identity
of the character they wrote. I'm sure my German teache
Kent Karlsson wrote:
> Marco,
Keld, please allow me to begin with the end of your post:
>Marco, please calm down and reread every sentence of my
> previous message. You seem to have misread quite a few things,
> but it is better you reread calmly before I try to clear
> up any remaining mis
Marco,
Standard orthography, and orthography that someone may
choose to use on a sign, or in handwriting, are often not
the same.
And I did say that current font technologies (e.g. OT)
does not actually do character to character mappings,
but the net effect is *as if* they did (if, and I h
Kent Karlsson wrote:
> > The claim was that dieresis and overscript e are the same
> in *modern*
> > *standard* German. Or, better stated, that overscript e is
> > just a glyph
> > variant of dieresis, in *modern* *standard* German typeset
> in Fraktur.
>
> Well, we strongly disagree about that
At 23:21 -0800 2002-10-28, Barry Caplan wrote:
Do we have codepoints for images found on the walls of caves?
No. The closest we come to that is wondering about the Tartaria
"proto-script", which we haven't readmapped.
--
Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com
> -Original Message-
> From: Marco Cimarosti [mailto:marco.cimarosti@;essetre.it]
> Sent: den 28 oktober 2002 16:23
> To: 'Kent Karlsson'; Marco Cimarosti
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: Character identities
>
>
> Kent Karlsson wrote
> Unicode captures the ice-age during the global warming era!
>
> Do we have codepoints for images found on the walls of caves?
>
> :)
CRO-MAGNON PAINTING HUMAN SPEARING A MAMMOTH
CRO-MAGNON PAINTING MAMMOTH STOMPING A HUMAN
...
At 04:39 PM 10/28/2002 -0600, David Starner wrote:
>But think of the utility if Unicode added a COMBINING SNOWCAP and
>COMBINING FIRECAP! But should we combine the SNOWCAP with the ICECAP?
>
>(-:
Unicode captures the ice-age during the global warming era!
Do we have codepoints for images found
John Hudson commented.
>At 02:46 10/26/2002, William Overington wrote:
>
>>I don't know whether you might be interested in the use of a small letter
a
>>with an e as an accent codified within the Private Use Area, but in case
you
>>might be interested, the web page is as follows.
>>
>>http://www.u
At 18:37 10/28/2002, Doug Ewell wrote:
It seems to me, as a non-font guy, that calling a font a "Unicode font"
implies two things:
1. It must be based on Unicode code points. For True- and OpenType
fonts, this implies a Unicode cmap; for other font technologies it
implies some more-or-less equ
Doug Ewell scripsit:
> 1. It must be based on Unicode code points. For True- and OpenType
> fonts, this implies a Unicode cmap; for other font technologies it
> implies some more-or-less equivalent mechanism. The point is that
> glyphs must be associated with Unicode code points (not necessaril
All this talk about the letter "A" reminded me of something from Hofstadter:
"The problem of intelligence, as I see it is to understand the fluid nature
of mental categories, to understand the invariant cores of percepts such as
your mother’s face, to understand the strangely flexible yet strong
b
ttp://www.macchiato.com
► “Eppur si muove” ◄
- Original Message -
From: "Doug Ewell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Unicode Mailing List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, October 28, 2002 17:37
Subject: Re: Character identities
> My USD 0.02, as someone who
My USD 0.02, as someone who is neither a professional typographer nor a
font designer (more than one, but not quite two, different things)...
Discussions about the character-glyph model often mention the "essential
characteristics" of a given character. For example, a Latin capital A
can be bold,
At 14:31 -0800 2002-10-28, Figge, Donald wrote:
At 20:59 + 2002-10-28, Anto'nio Martins-Tuva'lkin wrote:
On 2002.10.28, 13:09, David Starner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Basically, any decorative or handwriting font can't be a Unicode font.
<...>
Seems pointless to tell a lot of the fon
At 14:30 -0800 2002-10-28, Kenneth Whistler wrote:
> >Hm, what if I want to make, say, snow capped Devanagari glyphs for my
>hiking company in Nepal? Shouldn't I assign them to Unicode code points?
That's what Private Use code positions are for.
--
Michael Everson * * Everson Typography *
On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 01:36:08PM -0700, John Hudson wrote:
>
> >On 2002.10.28, 13:09, David Starner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> Basically, any decorative or handwriting font can't be a Unicode font.
> ><...>
> >> Seems pointless to tell a lot of the fontmakers out there that they
> >> sh
On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 09:36:34PM +, Michael Everson wrote:
> At 20:59 + 2002-10-28, Anto'nio Martins-Tuva'lkin wrote:
> >On 2002.10.28, 13:09, David Starner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> Basically, any decorative or handwriting font can't be a Unicode font.
> ><...>
> >> Seems point
> >Hm, what if I want to make, say, snow capped Devanagari glyphs for my
> >hiking company in Nepal? Shouldn't I assign them to Unicode code points?
>
> That's what Private Use code positions are for.
> --
> Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com
Um, Michael, I thin
At 13:36 -0700 2002-10-28, John Hudson wrote:
Or are you working with some definition of 'Unicode font' other than
'font with a Unicode cmap'?
It seemed to me that he was talking about fonts that had characters
that weren't in Unicode at all. I don't mean precomposed vowels, but,
say, fonts w
At 20:59 + 2002-10-28, Anto'nio Martins-Tuva'lkin wrote:
>On 2002.10.28, 13:09, David Starner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Basically, any decorative or handwriting font can't be a Unicode font.
><...>
>> Seems pointless to tell a lot of the fontmakers out there that they
>> shouldn't wor
At 20:59 + 2002-10-28, Anto'nio Martins-Tuva'lkin wrote:
On 2002.10.28, 13:09, David Starner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Basically, any decorative or handwriting font can't be a Unicode font.
<...>
Seems pointless to tell a lot of the fontmakers out there that they
shouldn't worry about
On 2002.10.28, 13:09, David Starner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Basically, any decorative or handwriting font can't be a Unicode font.
<...>
> Seems pointless to tell a lot of the fontmakers out there that they
> shouldn't worry about Unicode, because Unicode's only for standard
> book fonts
On 2002.10.28, 13:09, David Starner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Basically, any decorative or handwriting font can't be a Unicode font.
<...>
> Seems pointless to tell a lot of the fontmakers out there that they
> shouldn't worry about Unicode, because Unicode's only for standard
> book fonts
Hm,
Marco Cimarosti wrote:
>> There are also lots of characters that "mean" the same, but
>> always (in a Unicode font in default mode) should/must
>> look different. Like M and Roman Numeral One Thousand C D
>> (just to take an example closer to Italy... ;-).
>
> Well, the first and only time I have
Kent Karlsson wrote:
> > > For this reason it is quite impermissible to render the
> > > combining letter small e as a diaeresis
> >
> > So far so good. There would be no reason for doing such a thing.
> ...
> > > or, for that matter, the diaeresis as a combining
> > > letter small e (however, you
On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 11:21:30AM +0100, Kent Karlsson wrote:
> No, the claim was that diaresis and overscript e are the same,
> so the reversed case Marc is talking about is not different at all.
The claim is, that for certain fonts, it is appropriate to image the
a-umlaut character as an a^e. T
...
> > For this reason it is quite impermissible to render the
> > combining letter small e as a diaeresis
>
> So far so good. There would be no reason for doing such a thing.
...
> > or, for that matter, the diaeresis as a combining
> > letter small e (however, you see the latter version
> > some
At 11:37 25.10.2002 -0700, Doug Ewell wrote:
Marc Wilhelm Küster wrote:
> As to the long s, it is not used for writing present-day German except
> in rare cases, notably in some scholarly editions and in the Fraktur
> script. Very few texts beyond the names of newspapers are nowadays
> produced
At 02:46 10/26/2002, William Overington wrote:
I don't know whether you might be interested in the use of a small letter a
with an e as an accent codified within the Private Use Area, but in case you
might be interested, the web page is as follows.
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~ngo/ligatur5.
I don't know whether you might be interested in the use of a small letter a
with an e as an accent codified within the Private Use Area, but in case you
might be interested, the web page is as follows.
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~ngo/ligatur5.htm
I have encoded the a with an e as an accent
Jungshik Shin wrote:
> ...
> MS-Windows has to provide distinct ways to enter 'reverse solidus' and
> 'Yen/Won' sign (both full-width and half-width) in Japanese and Korean
> IMEs.
> ...
Good points, well stated. To make matters worse, the keyboard
references at Microsoft's Global Development s
Marc Wilhelm Küster wrote:
> As to the long s, it is not used for writing present-day German except
> in rare cases, notably in some scholarly editions and in the Fraktur
> script. Very few texts beyond the names of newspapers are nowadays
> produced in Fraktur. To put the long s on the German k
Kent Karlsson wrote:
> >... Like it or not, superscript e *is* the
> > same diacritic
> > that later become "¨", so there is absolutely no violation of
> > the Unicode
> > standard. Of course, this only applies German.
>
> Font makers, please do not meddle with the authors intent
> (as reflected in
Marc Wilhelm Küster wrote:
> At 14:04 25.10.2002 +0200, Kent Karlsson wrote:
> >Font makers, please do not meddle with the authors intent
> >(as reflected in the text of the document!). Just as it
> >is inappropriate for font makers to use an ø glyph for ö
> >(they are "the same", just slightly di
At 14:04 25.10.2002 +0200, Kent Karlsson wrote:
Font makers, please do not meddle with the authors intent
(as reflected in the text of the document!). Just as it
is inappropriate for font makers to use an ø glyph for ö
(they are "the same", just slightly different derivations
from "o^e"), it is j
To all contributors to this thread:
Please cease cc-ing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>! The CC was meant for
my remark on fuzzy search wrt. long-s and round-s. Google are
certainly not interested in any and all other turns this thread
has taken, or may take later.
David J. Perry had written:
An OpenType f
>... Like it or not, superscript e *is* the
> same diacritic
> that later become "¨", so there is absolutely no violation of
> the Unicode
> standard. Of course, this only applies German.
Font makers, please do not meddle with the authors intent
(as reflected in the text of the document!). Just
- Original Message -
From: "Marco Cimarosti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, October 25, 2002 10:42 AM
Subject: RE: Character identities
> Of course, this only applie
Peter Constable wrote:
> >> then *any* font having a unicode cmap is a Unicode font.
> >
> >No, not if the glyps (for the "supported characters") are
> >inappropriate for the characters given.
>
> Kent is quite right here. There are a *lot* of fonts out
> there with Unicode
> cmaps that do not at
On 10/24/2002 01:02:39 PM "Kent Karlsson" wrote:
>> then *any* font having a unicode cmap is a Unicode font.
>
>No, not if the glyps (for the "supported characters") are
>inappropriate for the characters given.
Kent is quite right here. There are a *lot* of fonts out there with Unicode
cmaps tha
And it is easy for Joe User to make a simple (visual...)
substitution cipher by just swiching to a font with the
glyphs for letters (etc.) permuted. Sure! I think it
would be a bad idea to call it a "Unicode font" though...
(That it technically may have a "unicode cmap" is beside
my point.)
Lik
At 06:47 AM 24-10-02, Otto Stolz wrote:
David J. Perry had written:
An OpenType font that is smart enough to substitute a long s glyph at the
right spots is the much superior long-term solution.
This will not work, cf. infra.
To be accurate, it works for display of English but not for German
At 09:46 -0700 2002-10-24, John Hudson wrote:
At 06:47 AM 24-10-02, Otto Stolz wrote:
David J. Perry had written:
An OpenType font that is smart enough to substitute a long s glyph at the
right spots is the much superior long-term solution.
This will not work, cf. infra.
To be accurate, it
> Kent Karlsson wrote:
> > And it is easy for Joe User to make a simple (visual...)
> > substitution cipher by just swiching to a font with the
> > glyphs for letters (etc.) permuted. Sure! I think it
> > would be a bad idea to call it a "Unicode font" though...
> > (That it technically may have
Kent Karlsson wrote:
> And it is easy for Joe User to make a simple (visual...)
> substitution cipher by just swiching to a font with the
> glyphs for letters (etc.) permuted. Sure! I think it
> would be a bad idea to call it a "Unicode font" though...
> (That it technically may have a "unicode c
John Hudson wrote,
> At 06:47 AM 24-10-02, Otto Stolz wrote:
>
> >David J. Perry had written:
> >>An OpenType font that is smart enough to substitute a long s glyph at the
> >>right spots is the much superior long-term solution.
> >
> >This will not work, cf. infra.
>
> To be accurate, it works
- Original Message -
From: "John Hudson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Otto Stolz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: den 24 oktober 2002 18:46
Subject: Re: Character identities
> To be accurate, it works
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "John Hudson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Otto Stolz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2002 8:44 PM
Subject: Re: Character identities
> Looking at a Fraktur b
David J. Perry had written:
An OpenType font that is smart enough to substitute a long s glyph at the
right spots is the much superior long-term solution.
This will not work, cf. infra.
David Starner wrote:
no matter what the convention, it requires a dictionary lookup for
various case;
On Thu, Oct 24, 2002 at 11:46:04AM +0200, Kent Karlsson wrote:
> Please don't. "a^e" is .
Which is great, if you're a scholar trying to accurately reproduce an
old text; if you're Joe User, trying to print a document in an Olde
German font, it's far more inconvienant than helpful.
> Still they a
> First, is it compliant with Unicode for an Antiqua font to use an s
> glyph for ſ (U+017F)? It makes switching between Antiqua and Fraktur
> fonts possible, and it is arguably the glyph given to the middle s in
> modern Antiqua fonts.
>
> Likewise, ä is printed as a with e above in old texts.*
David Starner wrote:
> Likewise, ä is printed as a with e above in old texts.* Would it be
> acceptable to make a font with a a^e glyph for ä? It's not even
> changing the meaning of the character in any way.
Indeed, that is exactly what Sütterlin fonts do. (Then again, Sütterlin
fonts assign t
On Wed, Oct 23, 2002 at 06:49:38PM -0400, David J. Perry wrote:
> > First, is it compliant with Unicode for an Antiqua font to use an s
> > glyph for ſ (U+017F)? It makes switching between Antiqua and Fraktur
> > fonts possible, and it is arguably the glyph given to the middle s
> > in modern Antiq
David Starner wrote:
First, is it compliant with Unicode for an Antiqua font to use an s
glyph for ſ (U+017F)? It makes switching between Antiqua and Fraktur
fonts possible, and it is arguably the glyph given to the middle s in
modern Antiqua fonts.
Likewise, ä is printed as a with e above in ol
- Original Message -
From: "David Starner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2002 7:00 PM
Subject: Character identities
> Likewise, ä is printed as a with e above in old texts.* Would it be
> acceptable to make a font with a a^e glyph for ä? It's no
95 matches
Mail list logo
