From: Asmus Freytag (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sat Apr 17 2004 - 18:32:10 EDT
At 01:54 PM 4/17/2004, Michael Everson wrote:
>The samples Asmus sent suggest to me that a school of typographers made a
>set of bad decisions, even if they were really famous and got paid lots of
>money and their fonts are widely shipped!
In all charity, Michael, your opinion seems to be mainly your personal
point of view. I'd love to see any evidence of either mid-dot or ano teleia
being consistently shown the way you claim it should be, but can't find it.
I've attached a second set of samples.
As you can see there are a few fonts, most designed for user interfaces,
that give 00B7 and 0387 the same treatment. I've put them on the top. The
rest, and it's a diverse lot, does not.
Also, as to your view of the relation between mid-dot and colon, it's clear
that this is not readily shared among typographers.
From Unicode's perspective, the consistent difference in treatment of 00B7
and 0387 is embarrassing, given the fact of their canonical equivalence.
PS: John had written:
>>This would make the mid-dot too high. The top dot of the colon usually
>>sits toward the top of the x-height; the *mid*-dot should sit lower,
>>optically midway up the x-height (which means slightly higher than the
>>actual halfway mark). The top dot of a colon is typically closer to the
>>height of the Greek ano teleia, which aligns with the x-height (and which
>>should align with the cap height in all-cap settings, and with the
>>small-cap height in smallcap settings).
which pretty much is the way most of the samples have it, but there are
some interesting differences, esp. among the more decorative fonts.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Apr 17 2004 - 19:06:55 EDT