On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 9:35 AM, Asmus Freytag <[email protected]> wrote:
> > For symbols, once you leave the canonical shape behind, there's always the > argument that what you have is in fact a new symbol. > > There are some exceptions to this, where notational aspect of symbol use > is so strong that variations really function identically and can be unified > without issues. This might be the case in your example. However, in > general, I would dispute that this is true for non-notational symbols. > > In the case you give, the "new" design is clearly not the canonical shape, > because it deliberately innovates. If it ever replaces the other sign in a > majority of uses (not just in NYC) then perhaps updating the glyph might be > appropriate. > > At this time, we are far from that point. > > That we are far from that point is clear to me; I was asking if there is a (semi-)formal definition of that point. What is "a majority of uses"? Leo
