Date: Tue Oct 29 2002 - 15:34:42 EST
> Standard orthography, and orthography that someone may
>choose to use on a sign, or in handwriting, are often not
If someone's writes an a-umlaut, no matter what it looks,
it should be encoded as an a-umlaut. That's the identity
of the character they wrote. I'm sure my German teacher
would not appreciate us typing up our homework and using
A-macron, even if the symbol she used for a-umlaut on the
blackboard looked like a macron.
> Math Fraktur A is a letter (of course!). Many letters,
>including ordinary A, are used as symbols too.
If it were a letter, then no one would have a problem with
you writing language with it. But there are warnings all
over the place, about how A and an appropriate font should
be used for Fraktur A. Math Fraktur A is a symbol - it doesn't
stand for a sound or a word.
>You seem to argue that for "symbols" (whichever those are,
>I'm sure you *don't* mean general categories S*...) there is
>total rigidity, while for "non-symbols" (whichever those are)
>there is near total anarchy and font makers can change glyphs
>to something entirely different.
Font makers can change the glyphs to whatever they want, so long
as it is uniquely that character.
> Marco, I'm not sure it is of any use to try to explain in
>more detail, since you don't appear to be listening. However,
>I think I, Marc, Doug, and Mark (at the very least) seem
>to be in approximate agreement on this (at least, I have
>yet to see any major disagreement). I'm sure Michael
>would agree too (at least I hope so), and many others.
Interesting. I don't agree totally with Marco, but I'm of the opinion
that glyphs of a with e above, a with macron above, and a with Disney
ears above can be suitable glyphs for a-umlaut, and I got the impression
that Mark and Doug agreed with me.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Oct 29 2002 - 16:29:07 EST