From: jameskass@att.net
Date: Fri Apr 30 2004 - 11:08:43 EDT
Peter Constable replied to 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.
Sure. A turned K should be regarded as a glyph variant of a reversed K.
Indeed, in certain font styles they would be indistinguishable.
> > 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.
I tend to agree, but it would be nice to hear from the user community on this.
"Fraktur Fraser" may not exist, in spite of its alluring alliteration, but
serif Fraser may be perfectly acceptable to the users. (Or not.)
Best regards,
James Kass
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Apr 30 2004 - 12:44:49 EDT