From: D. Starner (shalesller@writeme.com)
Date: Tue Dec 30 2003 - 15:07:07 EST
> > I thought glyph variants were supposed to look at least somewhat similar.
>
> Any reference to this similarity in appearance as a condition ?
>
> (Is the Sütterlin ğeĞ a glyph variant of standard latin Ğeğ then ? It does
> not ressemble any other "e" I know but rather an "n".)
>
> P.A.
Okay, let's go to the standard:
3.2.D2: Consistency with the representative glyph does not require that
the images be identical or even graphically similar; rather, it means
that both images are generally recognized to be representations of the
same character. Representing the character U+0061 LATIN SMALL LETTER A
by the glyph "X" would violate its character identity.
So I wasn't entirely correct. If they were Han ideographs they wouldn't
be unified, becuase of R3 (the abstract shape, Unicode 3.0) and probably
R2 (unrelated in historical derivation). (That is, the somewhat similar
rule clearly applies for Han ideographs.)
But talking about character identity, anyone using a Sütterlin font expects
the e to appear as it does. The Sütterlin e is clearly an e in character
identity. But as a mathematician, there is little variation I would accept
for U+2203 as an acceptable glyph shape. There is quite a bit more that I
would accept as conforming, but stupid. But all of them I would count as
acceptable would look like a backwards E. IMO, any other glyph shape violates
the character identity.
Another rule which isn't written into Unicode but I like (don't know if Everson
and Whistler and others will), is the font clarity rule. Given a font minus one
character, I should be able to predict what that character will look like. If I
have a Sütterlin font or a Fraktur font, I know what the ë will look like. It may
look nothing like it would in Times New Roman, but it will look right for that
font. If there are two seriously different glyphic choices for a character in
one font style, then you have inappropriately unified the two characters.
-- ___________________________________________________________ Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Dec 30 2003 - 15:52:08 EST