From: Kent Karlsson (email@example.com)
Date: Fri Oct 25 2002 - 08:04:03 EDT
>... Like it or not, superscript e *is* the
> same diacritic
> that later become "¨", so there is absolutely no violation of
> the Unicode
> standard. Of course, this only applies German.
Font makers, please do not meddle with the authors intent
(as reflected in the text of the document!). Just as it
is inappropriate for font makers to use an ĝ glyph for ö
(they are "the same", just slightly different derivations
from "o^e"), it is just as inappropriate for font makers to
use a "o^e" glyph for ö (by default in a Unicode font). Though
in some sense the "same" they are still different enough for
authors to care, and it is up to the document author/editor
to decide, not the font maker.
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org
>... We've implemented this successfully in
> OpenType fonts using the Historical Forms <hist> feature.
If the "umlaut" to "overscript e" transformation is put under
this feature for some fonts, I see no major reason to complain...
(As others have noted, it does not really work for the long s,
unless the language is labelled 'en'...)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Oct 25 2002 - 08:52:45 EDT