Doug Ewell wrote as follows. William Overington <WOverington at ngo dot globalnet dot co dot uk> wrote:
> Here is my design. > ... > Point 1 is at (0,0) and is on the curve. > Point 2 is at (0,2n) and is off the curve. > Point 3 is at (2n,2n) and is on the curve. > ... >I can't visualize this without knowing which lines are curved and which are straight, and without knowing where the origin is. Please see the response which I made to Michael Everson's comments. The origin is at (0,0) and is in the bottom left corner of the glyph. Implementation within any particular font is a matter for the font designer. I have tried to provide a design which is capable of being used in a wide variety of fonts. >Draw an image (smaller than 2048 � 2048), upload it to your family webspace, and post the URL to the list. (Don't send the image to the list.) I'll try to do that. In fact, I will try to write it up in the form of a case history in the style of a portfolio item for a National Vocational Qualification portfolio of the system used in England. That system places emphasis on the client specification and satisfying the needs of the client and resolving any problems needed in order to produce the deliverable that the client needs. So, this exercise is very good practice for me. >John forgot to mention this, but Michael is right: the glyph has to signify "not defined" or "glyph not supported" in some way. Just any old arbitrary shape may not be sufficient. I kind of like SEUSS LETTER WUM myself. I managed to look up SEUSS LETTER WUM at http://www.yahoo.com and it produced a page at Michael Everson's website including a graphic. The page also has some links to other pages with some very nice graphics. Please see the response which I made to Michael Everson's comments. However, if you feel that I have not covered the matter fully, please feel free to respond, as I am interested to resolve the matter fully in accordance with the way that I like to produce complete case history documents for my portfolio. I hope you don't mind me referring to the other reply, it is just that I am responding to the emails in the order in which they arrived and so I have just typed in a lot and do not wish to simply copy and paste from that email to this one. William Overington 7 November 2002
