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 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. (I suspect the answer is it's not technically complaint, but nobody cares.) (To my surprise, I came across a text from 1920 that used the e-above instead of a diearsis. The only other texts I've see with this date before 1810. It was "Islands Kultur zur Wikingerzeit" by Felix Niedner, in the series (?) "Thule: Altnordische Dichtung und Prosa", which leads me to believe, based off my limited German, that it's a deliberate anacronism. Right?) As a third case, I looked briefly at information and advocacy of the duodecimal system. Chi and epsilon have been used as glyphs for 10 and 11, as well as an upside-down 2 and 3, a chi and reversed pound symbol (? I'd need at that one again . . .) and * and #. Unified, they might a proposal here, if someone still cares enough to make it. Would it be unreasonable to unify them? There's quite a disparity in glyphs, but not much argument against them all being the same character, and I don't think there's anyone wanting to make the distinction. -- David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Great is the battle-god, great, and his kingdom-- A field where a thousand corpses lie. -- Stephen Crane, "War is Kind"
