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.)
Likewise for for your (less extreme) suggestions. They
are very close to suggesting "making a swedish text use
Danish writing style for åäö (aa or å, æ, ø) by just a
font change". Which you easily could do by a special font.
Would that font be a Unicode font? I think all of these
changes would be unexpected (for the Latin script) from
a mere font change (between "Unicode fonts").
If someone really wants such substitutions, it is easy
enough to produce using character string substitution.
No fonts like you suggest are needed. But you would need
(a) font(s) that display <U+0061, U+0364> and similar cases
properly. The latter would be very welcome!
/Kent K
> 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.
>
> > Still they are definitely different enough to be considered
> > othographic differences, not font differences.
>
> Changing a^e to ä is all that would need to be done to make the books
> that use a^e look like those of the same timeframe that use ä. I'm not
> sure where you draw the line between font and orthographic
> differences,
> but this does not require dictionary lookup, and for my purposes is
> most easily done by a font change.
