Date: Tue Mar 16 2004 - 14:06:31 EST
Peter Kirk scripsit:
> It has the disadvantage of making these fonts useless for Turkish and
> Azeri, and more fundamentally so than fonts which have <f,i> ligatures
> with no visible dot. And of course the fonts would not be acceptable to
> most users of English and other Latin script languages. So any such font
> will be restricted to a small niche market.
Inevitably so. It's a mistake to think that because Unicode unifies character
sets, that it also requires or even prefers "unified" fonts. In anything
but the most unusual circumstances, using Gaelic fonts for anything but Irish
(and very marginally Scottish Gaelic and Old English) is a typographical
travesty, akin to using Naskh-style Arabic fonts for Persian.
Switching the representation of Irish text to use DOTLESS I, on the other
hand, would mean that text being converted from Roman to Gaelic fonts would
have to be actually changed. It would also create unnecessary work for
representing mixed Irish and English text.
-- John Cowan www.reutershealth.com www.ccil.org/~cowan email@example.com Lope de Vega: "It wonders me I can speak at all. Some caitiff rogue did rudely yerk me on the knob, wherefrom my wits still wander." An Englishman: "Ay, a filchman to the nab betimes 'll leave a man crank for a spell." --Harry Turtledove, Ruled Britannia
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Mar 16 2004 - 14:43:14 EST