From: John Hudson (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Wed Nov 05 2003 - 11:36:29 EST
At 03:24 AM 11/5/2003, Philippe Verdy wrote:
>The obliterated character needed for paleolitic studies, or to encode any
>texts in which the character is not recognizable already exists: isn't it
>the REPLACEMENT CHARACTER?
>Such base character should be rendered with a spacing glyph (for example a
>circle filled with a grey pattern, or the rounded box with oblique hatches
>that we sometimes see in charts) It is not the same as the missing letter
>which is not there because of alteration of the source document.
I think this is a typographical decision, so perhaps a glyph issue.
Personally, there is no way I'd let a rounded box with oblique hatches
anywhere near any scholarly work that I was typesetting. :)
Tiro Typeworks www.tiro.com
Vancouver, BC email@example.com
I sometimes think that good readers are as singular,
and as awesome, as great authors themselves.
- JL Borges
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Nov 05 2003 - 12:34:08 EST