I have indicated already in my first mail that having those characters in his typecase might mean something. However I'd be wary to encode a character based on a single usage which does not even make a distinction to the ordinary section sign.
Nonetheless, it seems quite probable that other documents using that printer's type will surface. However, until then we cannot determine, whether it was just an error made by the type cutter (which might happen), or intentional and used in contrast. /Sz 2010/8/6 Joó Ádám <[email protected]>: > Nevertheless, our typesetter had those types for some reason. Or do > you think that – given its different style – it was only a glyph > variant of some other font? > > > Ádám >
