Out of curiosity, has it happened before, that a glyph was updated (i.e., substantially changed) in the standard?
Cheers, 2013/5/29 Asmus Freytag <[email protected]> > On 5/29/2013 8:39 AM, Leo Broukhis wrote: > >> >> I'd like to ask: what is supposed to be the trigger condition for the UTC >> to consider changing the representative glyph of >> <your favorate symbol here> to <a novel> design? >> >> > The answer: the purpose of the representative glyph is not to track > fashions in representation but to give an easily recognized "orthodox" > shape. > > In the case of symbols, shape matters differently than for letters (where > you have a word context that allows even decorative font shapes to be > "readable"). > > 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. > > A./ > >
