script) and in
the German-speaking parts fo Switzerland until 1946. It is still used
by hobbyists, revival activists, and as an "old-fashioned" style.
Thus, there are texts displayable in Fraktur (i.e. containing long s).
When you want to display these (modern) texts in Roman (Antiqua), yo
Am Mittwoch, 4. August 2010 um 22:44 schrieb ich:
KP> However, in my next version, I will replace the "s" variants by "long s"
variants:
KP> 017F FE00 ...LONG S VARIANT-1 ... STANDARD FORM
KP> · will be displayed long in any script variants
KP> 017F FE01 .
On Wed, 4 Aug 2010 Karl Pentzlin wrote:
> Am Dienstag, 3. August 2010 um 19:11 schrieb Janusz S. BieÅ:
>
> JJSB> I see no reason why, if I understand correctly, the long s variant is
> JSB> to be limited to Fraktur-like styles.
>
> The *variant* is applicable to situat
For the "standard form" you probably don't need to add a variation selector.
The codepoint for long s itself expresses exactly the semantic to represent
this character as long s in ANY type style.
While I'm not convinced of your variation proposal at all (on the contrary),
if
Am Dienstag, 3. August 2010 um 19:11 schrieb Janusz S. Bień:
JJSB> I see no reason why, if I understand correctly, the long s variant is
JSB> to be limited to Fraktur-like styles.
The *variant* is applicable to situations where the character is to be
displayed long when Fraktur-like styl
In my opinion, adding the s+VS1 variation sequence is completely unneeded. If
you really want a "long s", use the code
assigned to the long s. fonts or renderers should still provide a reasonnable
fallback to "s" if the glyph is missing.
This means that all existing ligatu
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 05:19, William_J_G Overington
> Long s was used with ordinary Roman type in England for English text in at
> least part of the 17th and 18th centuries.
More on that by babelstone:
http://babelstone.blogspot.com/2006/06/rules-for-long-s.html
(Sorry for the duplicate
On 4 August 2010 09:19, William_J_G Overington
wrote:
Answering the two questions below on the assumption that s-VS1 <0073
FE00> were to be defined as a variation sequence for long s in all
type styles, and without giving any opinion on the merits or otherwise
of Karl's proposal in
On Tuesday, 3/8/10, Janusz S. Bień wrote:
> I see no reason why, if I understand correctly, the long s
> variant is to be limited to Fraktur-like styles.
Long s was used with ordinary Roman type in England for English text in at
least part of the 17th and 18th centuries.
How cou
intended to be submitted for the next UTC
> starting next Monday (August 9).
I see no reason why, if I understand correctly, the long s variant is
to be limited to Fraktur-like styles.
Please visit
http://poliqarp.wbl.klf.uw.edu.pl/slownik-polszczyzny-xvi-wieku/
and enter e.g. the q
> Somehow I'm not surprised that the example with it is a song book and the
> counter-
> example is a technical work. But perhaps that's pure speculation on my part.
Trying to collect old books for Project Gutenberg, we find it very hard to
find German fiction not in Fraktur, but all the old Germ
At 04:08 PM 1/8/2004, D. Starner wrote:
Otto Stolz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Gerd Schumacher wrote:
> > The long s [...] has been abandoned from the Roman alphabet in Germany
> > in the mid of the 19th century.
>
> You mean the 20th century, don't you?
>
Hello Otto,
Thanks for your reply.
Otto Stolz wrote:
>Gerd Schumacher wrote:
>> The long s [...] has been abandoned from the Roman alphabet in Germany
>> in the mid of the 19th century.
>You mean the 20th century, don't you?
>I have a facsimile reprint of the 1914
Otto Stolz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Gerd Schumacher wrote:
> The long s [...] has been abandoned from the Roman alphabet in Germany
> in the mid of the 19th century.
You mean the 20th century, don't you?
I have a facsimile reprint of the 1914 issue of "Zupfgeigenhansel&
Hello, and best wishes for the new year.
Gerd Schumacher wrote:
The long s [...] has been abandoned from the Roman alphabet in Germany
in the mid of the 19th century.
You mean the 20th century, don't you?
I have a facsimile reprint of the 1914 issue of "Zupfgeigenhansel"
(a ren
On 11/11/2002 11:12:55 AM Michael Everson wrote:
>Are there not minimal pairs in Hebrew where the final form would be
>expected but isn't used for some reason? There certainly is for final
>sigma, which is why it is a good thing it is encoded separately.
I agree that there are valid reasons for
At 08:00 -0600 2002-11-11, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 11/11/2002 05:42:15 AM Marco Cimarosti wrote:
Michael Everson wrote:
I like to think of the long s as similar to the final sigma. Nobody
thinks that final sigma should be a presentation form of sigma.
Never say "nobody": I
On 11/11/2002 05:42:15 AM Marco Cimarosti wrote:
>Michael Everson wrote:
>> I like to think of the long s as similar to the final sigma. Nobody
>> thinks that final sigma should be a presentation form of sigma.
>
>Never say "nobody": I *do* think that Greek fin
Michael Everson wrote:
> I like to think of the long s as similar to the final sigma. Nobody
> thinks that final sigma should be a presentation form of sigma.
Never say "nobody": I *do* think that Greek final sigma, final Hebrew
letters, and Latin long s should all be presentatio
Michael Everson wrote:
> I like to think of the long s as similar to the final sigma. Nobody
> thinks that final sigma should be a presentation form of sigma.
In fact, my very first post to this list, in November 1997, was to ask
whether sigma and final sigma were really just presentation
At 5:22 pm + 8/11/02, Michael Everson wrote:
I like to think of the long s as similar to the final sigma. Nobody
thinks that final sigma should be a presentation form of sigma.
Nobody really uses long s in modern Roman typography, and it's a lot
more convenient to have this as a sep
The long s is indeed a variant of short s. In general it is used in the
middle of a word, when used, while short s is used at the end of a word,
but exceptions occur in various scribal traditions, mostly when s occurs
at the end of a compound in a compound word. Compare modern German where
ß (a
Thomas Lotze scripsit:
> Why is the LATIN SMALL LETTER LONG S considered a character
> in its own right?
>
> At least the way the two s's are used in German, they seem to act like a
> classical pair of representation forms of one single character: if the
> long s is pre
- Original Message -
From: "Thomas Lotze" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 5:37 PM
Subject: Is long s a presentation form?
> Why is the long form of the small latin letter s considered a character
> in its own right
I like to think of the long s as similar to the final sigma. Nobody
thinks that final sigma should be a presentation form of sigma.
Nobody really uses long s in modern Roman typography, and it's a lot
more convenient to have this as a separate character for the
nonce-uses that it has th
r font
may decide to represent all s except the ending-s as long-s (where
"ending" may be in the middle of concatenated words).
Best regards.
--
Dominikus Scherkl
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
the small latin letter s considered a character
in its own right? (It has UV 017F and is not deprecated, according to
the glyph tables.)
At least the way the two s are used in german, they seem to act like a
classical pair of representation forms of one single character: if the
long s is present i
Doug Ewell wrote:
I'm not aware of any keyboard layout, German or otherwise, that contains
U+017F. Would it be reasonable to suggest that it be added to the
standard German layout? AltGr+s seems to be available.
It would certainly not hurt to have it there.
Fraktur, and Long-s, are not
- Message d'origine -
De : "Otto Stolz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
À : "Doug Ewell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc : "Unicode Mailing List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Torsten Mohrin"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Envoyé : 24 oct. 2002 12:06
Objet
At 12:47 -0400 2002-10-24, Patrick Andries wrote:
- Message d'origine -
De : "Otto Stolz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Ä : "Doug Ewell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc : "Unicode Mailing List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Torsten Mohrin"
<[EMAIL P
John H. Jenkins had written:
> Aargh! Medial long-s! Run away! Run away! :-)
Stefan Persſon wrote:
> Why ſhould I not uſe old characters that already were out-of-uſe centuries
> ago? ;-)
Juſt for the record: it's not "centuries", but half a century: "ſ"
31 matches
Mail list logo
