Re: ogonek vs. retroflex hook

From: Michael Everson (
Date: Thu Apr 03 2003 - 08:34:53 EST

  • Next message: William Overington: "Re: Exciting new software release!"

    At 01:45 -0600 2003-04-03, wrote:

    >I can't comment on the historical development of this practice and whether
    >it might have arisen from confusion with ogonek. I think the library on our
    >center has IJAL from its inception (nearly 70 years), so I could jump back
    >a decade or two or three to see what I can find out. In the mean time, how
    >is U. of Chicago Press to migrate their publishing of IJAL to use Unicode?
    >Either they encode a bunch of base-ogonek characters (most of which would
    >still need to be proposed) and use fonts that maintain "poor typographic
    >practice" of having ogoneks that look like retroflex hooks, or they need to
    >revise their typographic practice and switch to using typeforms with real
    >ogoneks. The former has obvious concerns, but the latter doesn't remove all
    >concerns -- the legacy practice continues to haunt. As I have looked
    >through various sources, it has been apparent to me that
    >authors/editors/publishers often endeavour to maintain original typography
    >in quotations. So, with a bunch of base-ogonek characters encoded, it will
    >be unclear to them how to represent quotations from IJAL.

    Peter, I often suggest this, and you rarely take me up on it, but I
    for one will not try to debug this kind of discussion in plain text
    without seeing all the actual glyphs. PLEASE write a discussion paper
    with a series of examples from a series of publications, illustrating
    the practices and the problems, and then we can all be informed
    enough to make recommendations. What "a bunch of base-ogonek
    characters" could mean is a mystery to me.

    Michael Everson * * Everson Typography *  *

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Apr 03 2003 - 09:34:10 EST