From: Michael Everson (email@example.com)
Date: Mon Nov 10 2003 - 06:25:11 EST
At 10:23 +0000 2003-11-10, Jill Ramonsky wrote:
> > There are oceans of data out there with ABCDEF used already. What do
>> you propose to do about that?
>Nothing. This is not my problem, and I find it irrelevant.
That attitude is why it might be good that you don't have a vote.
Even I, who have worked successfully to undo "silly" unifications,
have to address the legacy data issue.
>The arguments made in Ricardo's document are clear, concise, and
>absolutely spot on.
Uh. His arguments are pretty poor. He begins with the assumption that
digits are monowidth, for instance, and goes from there to saying
"and so we need digit-width letters". But digits aren't always
monowidth, and indeed in AAT and OT fonts you can have spacing and
non-spacing glyphs for the same coded digits anyway, so of course you
can do the same for the letters A-F.
As far as needing a Numeric property for some form of A-F, well, we
haven't needed one for the past few decades, now, have we?
-- Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Nov 10 2003 - 07:29:48 EST