At 13:27 -0800 2002-10-29, Kenneth Whistler wrote:
Kent can't be right here.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 tilde, or a little e above), since that is what Germans do. Kent: It is *not* o.k. -- that constitutes changing a character.
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.
2. The fact that a + diaeresis with a superscript e glyph could be mistaken for a + superscript-e is not more troublesome than the possibility of mistaking Latin or Cyrillic o with Greek omicron.
Michael, you might have to recuse yourself, however, since when it was suggested that displaying Devanagari characters with snowpeaked glyphs for a Nepali hiking company would be o.k., you misunderstood and suggested private use characters!
I did admit that I did not read the sentence entirely.... -- Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com
