Re: Glyph Standard? (was Re: dotless j)

From: John Cowan (cowan@locke.ccil.org)
Date: Thu Jul 08 1999 - 13:43:06 EDT

Next message: Magda Danish (Unicode): "FW: Unicode control characters"
Previous message: Sandra O'donnell USG: "Re: U+01AB LATIN SMALL LETTER T WITH PALATAL HOOK"
Maybe in reply to: Edward Cherlin: "Glyph Standard? (was Re: dotless j)"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

Edward Cherlin wrote:

> The reason for not having a glyph standard is that different fonts need
> different ligature sets.

Because some cases are bad does not mean that all cases are bad.

> Compare Kufic and Royal Diwani in Arabic for an
> extreme example.

Can you enlighten The Rest Of Us?

-- 
	John Cowan	http://www.ccil.org/~cowan	cowan@ccil.org
Schlingt dreifach einen Kreis um dies! / Schliesst euer Aug vor heiliger Schau,
Denn er genoss vom Honig-Tau / Und trank die Milch vom Paradies.
			-- Coleridge / Politzer

Next message: Magda Danish (Unicode): "FW: Unicode control characters"
Previous message: Sandra O'donnell USG: "Re: U+01AB LATIN SMALL LETTER T WITH PALATAL HOOK"
Maybe in reply to: Edward Cherlin: "Glyph Standard? (was Re: dotless j)"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:48 EDT