William Overington WOverington at ngo dot globalnet dot co dot uk
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,
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
Adam Twardoch list dot adam at twardoch dot com 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:
At 08:32 31.10.2002 -0800, Doug Ewell wrote:
Adam Twardoch list dot adam at twardoch dot com 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*
(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 of n. I
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, :
The diaeresis may mean separate pronunication of the u, indicating it is not merged with preceding
of following letter but is pronounced
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! Apologies to
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
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
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)?
John Cowan jcowan at reutershealth dot com 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.
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
[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 (german
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
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_upper
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 seen examples,
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 letter
should be
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
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,
Actually,
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, that is
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! After all,
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 (mystring in
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
this
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
...
-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:
For this reason it is quite impermissible to render
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
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 then. Marc
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
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
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 teacher
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
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
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
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
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
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 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
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 have
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
At 11:37 25.10.2002 -0700, Doug Ewell wrote:
Marc Wilhelm Küster kuester at saphor dot net 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
...
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
sometimes, very
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.
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 see the latter
Marco Cimarosti marco dot cimarosti at essetre dot it 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
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, what
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
Hello?
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
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
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
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 think
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 pointless to tell a
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
shouldn't worry about
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 * *
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
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,
” ◄
- 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 is neither a professional typographer nor a
font designer (more than one
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
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 necessarily
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
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.
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 on
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
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.
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 all conform
- 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 applies German.
And Swedish.
Stefan
... 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 as it
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
Marco Cimarosti (amongst others, using the same term) wrote:
superscript e *is* the same diacritic that later become ¨
The term superscript e does not aptly describe the situation.
Rather, the German a-Umlaut is derived from U+0061 U+0364
(LATIN SMALL CHARACTER A + COMBINING LATIN SMALL
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 just
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 different
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 the text of
Jungshik Shin jshin at mailaps dot org 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
David Starner starner at okstate dot edu 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,
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.*
On Thu, Oct 24, 2002 at 11:46:04AM +0200, Kent Karlsson wrote:
Please don't. a^e is U+0061, U+0364.
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.
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;
- 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 book published in 1917, which is neither English
nor German
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 for display of
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 cmap is
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
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
- 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 : Long S on keyboard (was: Character identities)
Doug Ewell wrote:
I'm not aware
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.)
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 much
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
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 PROTECTED]
Envoy© : 24 oct. 2002 12:06
Objet : Long S on keyboard (was: Character
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 that do not
I have several questions about character identities.
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
- 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 not even
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
92 matches
Mail list logo
