From: Michael Everson (email@example.com)
Date: Tue Oct 29 2002 - 16:46:02 EST
At 13:27 -0800 2002-10-29, Kenneth Whistler wrote:
>> My eyes have glazed over reading this discussion. What am I being
>> asked to agree with?
>Here's the executive summary for those without the time to
>plow through the longer exchange:
>Marco: It is o.k. (in a German-specific context) to display
> an umlaut as a macron (or a tilde, or a little e above),
> since that is what Germans do.
>Kent: It is *not* o.k. -- that constitutes changing a character.
Kent can't be right here.
1. We have all seen examples, in print, in signage, and in
handwriting of German umlauts being displayed in each of those ways.
Obviously the underlying encoding of them is the same, as is the
2. The fact that a + diaeresis with a superscript e glyph could be
mistaken for a + superscript-e is not more troublesome than the
possibility of mistaking Latin or Cyrillic o with Greek omicron.
>Michael, you might have to recuse yourself, however, since when it
>was suggested that displaying Devanagari characters with snowpeaked
>glyphs for a Nepali hiking company would be o.k., you misunderstood
>and suggested private use characters!
I did admit that I did not read the sentence entirely....
-- Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Oct 29 2002 - 17:50:54 EST