From: Michael Everson (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue Mar 16 2004 - 14:32:54 EST
At 14:06 -0500 2004-03-16, email@example.com wrote:
>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.
As soon as someone commissions a Gaelic font from me which needs
dotted lower-case i for Turkish or Azeri, I shall let you know.
> 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.
Gaelic fonts without dots on the i's are perfectly acceptable for
English and other Latin-script languages. Unfortunately, the makers
of American Uncial (curse it) decided it needed a dot, and made the
dot a fat acute mark into the bargain.
>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.
There's nothing wrong with using Gaelic fonts for English.
-- Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Mar 16 2004 - 15:20:51 EST