At 10:37 am -0700 2002-07-05, David Possin wrote:
>Aztec glyphs: Some of the glyphs are identical in shape and form, but a
>certain colored area changes the meaning if a different color is
>applied. When Michael Everson asked for proof, both Marco Cimarosti and
>I sent him links to websites that state this color issue. Silence.
What did you want me to say? Aztec hasn't been fully deciphered yet,
it seems. I did mention Budge's use of a black line over rubricked
Egyptian text. If we encountered a script in which colour was really
intrinsic we might have to deal with it, but in the real world such a
convention would be pretty unstable. How would you carve your name
into a tree with a knife if you had no ink with you and D was black
but d was blue?
>Ethiopian writing: Daniel Yacob described the usage of red dots,
>accents, and words in that writing system, nobody except WO followed up
>with the significance of Daniel's statements. Silence, even though he
>wrote "The capability to the same electronically would be well
Would markup not do?
>I see two valid possible proposals here to add a color attribute to a
>character. What will happen if a need for these characters is
>discovered, a consortium with the necessary background is formed, and
>the UTC receives an orderly proposal?
In Quark I can add colour attributes to a character for printing. We
would consider an orderly proposal on its merits.
-- Michael Everson *** Everson Typography *** http://www.evertype.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Fri Jul 05 2002 - 15:29:23 EDT