At 10:37 am -0700 2002-07-05, David Possin wrote: >Aztec glyphs: Some of the glyphs are identical in shape and form, but a >certain colored area changes the meaning if a different color is >applied. When Michael Everson asked for proof, both Marco Cimarosti and >I sent him links to websites that state this color issue. Silence.
What did you want me to say? Aztec hasn't been fully deciphered yet, it seems. I did mention Budge's use of a black line over rubricked Egyptian text. If we encountered a script in which colour was really intrinsic we might have to deal with it, but in the real world such a convention would be pretty unstable. How would you carve your name into a tree with a knife if you had no ink with you and D was black but d was blue? >Ethiopian writing: Daniel Yacob described the usage of red dots, >accents, and words in that writing system, nobody except WO followed up >with the significance of Daniel's statements. Silence, even though he >wrote "The capability to the same electronically would be well >received. Would markup not do? >I see two valid possible proposals here to add a color attribute to a >character. What will happen if a need for these characters is >discovered, a consortium with the necessary background is formed, and >the UTC receives an orderly proposal? In Quark I can add colour attributes to a character for printing. We would consider an orderly proposal on its merits. -- Michael Everson *** Everson Typography *** http://www.evertype.com
