On 3/25/2017 3:15 PM, David Starner
wrote:
The latter is patent nonsense, because ä and aͤ are even less related to each other than "i" and "j"; never mind the fact that their forms are both based on the letter "a". Encoding and font choice should be seen as separate. The priority in encoding has to be with allowing distinctions in modern texts, or distinctions that matter to modern users of historic writing systems. Beyond that, theoretical analysis of typographical evolution can give some interesting insight, but I would be in the camp that does not accord them a status as primary rationale for encoding decisions. Thus, critical need for contrasting use of the glyph distinctions would have to be established before it makes sense to discuss this further. I see no principled objection to having a font choice result in a noticeable or structural glyph variation for only a few elements of an alphabet. We have handle-a vs. bowl-a as well as hook-g vs. loop-g in Latin, and fonts routinely select one or the other. (It is only for usage outside normal text that the distinction between these forms matters). While the Deseret forms are motivated by their pronunciation, I'm not necessarily convinced that the distinction has any practical significance that is in any way different than similar differences in derivation (e.g. for long s-s or long-s-z for German esszett). In fact, it would seem that if a Deseret text was encoded in one of the two systems, changing to a different font would have the attractive property of preserving the content of the text (while not preserving the appearance). This, in a nutshell, is the criterion for making something a font difference vs. an encoding distinction. A./ PS: huh?
|
- Re: Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alph... Asmus Freytag
- Re: Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alph... James Kass
- Re: Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alph... Michael Everson
- Re: Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alph... Michael Everson
- Re: Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alph... Martin J. Dürst
- Re: Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alph... James Kass
- Re: Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alph... Michael Everson
- Re: Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alph... Michael Everson
- Re: Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alph... David Starner
- Re: Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alph... Michael Everson
- Re: Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alph... Asmus Freytag
- Re: Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alph... Michael Everson
- Re: Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alph... Asmus Freytag
- Re: Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alph... Michael Everson
- Re: Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alph... Michael Everson
- Re: Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alph... Asmus Freytag
- Re: Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alph... Martin J. Dürst
- Re: Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alph... James Kass
- Re: Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alph... Michael Everson
- Re: Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alph... John H. Jenkins
- Re: Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alph... Michael Everson