RE: Fraser

From: Peter Constable ([email protected])
Date: Fri Apr 30 2004 - 10:00:50 EDT

Next message: Dean Snyder: "Re: New contribution"

Previous message: [email protected]: "Re: Brahmic Unification (was Re: New contribution )"
Maybe in reply to: John Cowan: "Fraser"
Next in thread: [email protected]: "RE: Fraser"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
On
> Behalf Of John Cowan

> Here's what I find: Fraser needs turned A, B, C, D, E, F, G, J, L, P,
> R, T, U, V, and W; also reversed K (but I wonder if turned K is
equally
> recognizable).

I've always assumed that they just took Latin type, ignored the
lowercase, and turned some of the caps over. If that's the case, I would
assume the answer is yes.

> One could argue, I suppose, that Latin caps are too flexible for
Fraser,
> which seems to want very simple block-style glyphs

But that is a typeface distinction, not a script distinction.

Peter Constable

Next message: Dean Snyder: "Re: New contribution"
Previous message: [email protected]: "Re: Brahmic Unification (was Re: New contribution )"
Maybe in reply to: John Cowan: "Fraser"
Next in thread: [email protected]: "RE: Fraser"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Apr 30 2004 - 10:51:29 EDT