From: Michael Everson (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sat Jan 03 2004 - 13:21:35 EST
At 09:03 -0800 2004-01-03, Peter Kirk wrote:
>In fact it should be considered a variant of g.
>The representative glyph for this character seems to be good.
It is. We went to a lot of trouble getting it that way too.
>But, given that the name is so misleading but cannot be changed, it
>is good that there is a note "= gha" in the Unicode character charts.
>But in the light of naming errors like this one implementers should
>be advised not to use character names, because they are not reliably
I wouldn't say that. It would better to advise them, as we do, that
they cannot rely on the names being perfect. That's different from
not using them at all.
-- Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Jan 03 2004 - 13:46:00 EST