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
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!
> 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
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
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
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
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
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
17 matches
Mail list logo
