Christopher J. Fynn wrote:
> ...
> If this sort of thing is going to occur (and I think it is more or > won't it cause less problems to assign this entity an official encoding despite
> it's dubious claims to this status?
>...
> - Chris
I agree (otherwise, we might end up with the bad situation of the past,
where only SIL and similarly invasive publishers prevailed).
Marion Gunn
ps.
I attach 2 current examples typical of SIL's unchanging attitude: msgs
containing their "advice to natives wanting more than dingbats", which
is “go find your own font designers/programmers”.:-(
mg
On Mon, 5 Jul 1999, Peter_Constable@sil.org wrote:
>
> Much more likely that a font maker would design an expert set font, if they were
> going to be careful, or stick it any old place in the font if they weren't.
> Either way, I think what Tim has described is a variant glyph and not a distinct
> character.
>
> Peter
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:48 EDT