Re: Glyph Standard?

From: Edward Cherlin (edward.cherlin.sy.67@aya.yale.edu)
Date: Tue Jul 13 1999 - 03:43:43 EDT

Next message: Arno Schmitt: "Re: disunifying Dagesh and Shuruk"
Previous message: Martin J. Duerst: "Charlint (aka charlie)"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

At 10:37 -0700 7/8/1999, John Cowan wrote:
>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

My source is

Becker, Joseph. 1984. Multilingual Word Processing. Scientific
American. July, 96-107.

http://www.sciam.com does not go back that far. Maybe Joe can help us out.

Kufic styles take a minimalist approach to Arabic script, and might be
described as Gothic Arabic. Royal Diwani is an extremely elaborate Arabic
script.

--
Edward Cherlin   edward.cherlin.sy.67@aya.yale.edu
"It isn't what you don't know that hurts you, it's
what you know that ain't so."--Mark Twain, or else
some other prominent 19th century humorist and wit

Next message: Arno Schmitt: "Re: disunifying Dagesh and Shuruk"
Previous message: Martin J. Duerst: "Charlint (aka charlie)"
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