Re: A .notdef glyph

From: William Overington (WOverington@ngo.globalnet.co.uk)
Date: Thu Nov 07 2002 - 05:53:51 EST

  • Next message: William Overington: "Re: A .notdef glyph"

    Doug Ewell wrote as follows.

    William Overington <WOverington at ngo dot globalnet dot co dot uk>
    wrote:

    > Here is my design.
    > ...
    > Point 1 is at (0,0) and is on the curve.
    > Point 2 is at (0,2n) and is off the curve.
    > Point 3 is at (2n,2n) and is on the curve.
    > ...

    >I can't visualize this without knowing which lines are curved and which
    are straight, and without knowing where the origin is.

    Please see the response which I made to Michael Everson's comments.

    The origin is at (0,0) and is in the bottom left corner of the glyph.
    Implementation within any particular font is a matter for the font designer.
    I have tried to provide a design which is capable of being used in a wide
    variety of fonts.

    >Draw an image (smaller than 2048 2048), upload it to your family
    webspace, and post the URL to the list. (Don't send the image to the
    list.)

    I'll try to do that. In fact, I will try to write it up in the form of a
    case history in the style of a portfolio item for a National Vocational
    Qualification portfolio of the system used in England. That system places
    emphasis on the client specification and satisfying the needs of the client
    and resolving any problems needed in order to produce the deliverable that
    the client needs. So, this exercise is very good practice for me.

    >John forgot to mention this, but Michael is right: the glyph has to
    signify "not defined" or "glyph not supported" in some way. Just any
    old arbitrary shape may not be sufficient. I kind of like SEUSS LETTER
    WUM myself.

    I managed to look up SEUSS LETTER WUM at http://www.yahoo.com and it
    produced a page at Michael Everson's website including a graphic. The page
    also has some links to other pages with some very nice graphics.

    Please see the response which I made to Michael Everson's comments.

    However, if you feel that I have not covered the matter fully, please feel
    free to respond, as I am interested to resolve the matter fully in
    accordance with the way that I like to produce complete case history
    documents for my portfolio.

    I hope you don't mind me referring to the other reply, it is just that I am
    responding to the emails in the order in which they arrived and so I have
    just typed in a lot and do not wish to simply copy and paste from that email
    to this one.

    William Overington

    7 November 2002



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 07 2002 - 06:38:43 EST