From: Michael Everson (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Mon May 03 2004 - 13:04:39 CDT
At 12:56 -0400 2004-05-03, email@example.com wrote:
>What I think is that it's okay to unify Fraktur into Latin, despite
>the lack of Fraktur glyphs for lots of things. Icelandic, still
>less Vietnamese, in Fraktur would be a perversity;
I am afraid that you are mistaken. Icelandic was OFTEN printed in Fraktur.
Apart from that, I don't personally think that Vietnamese in Fraktur
would be particularly perverse. There are Cyrillic Fraktur styles,
for that matter. (A Hausa Fraktur might be a bit of a design
challenge, but in any case the text would be recognizable with less
than a half-hour's study -- WITHOUT a key.
No Georgian can read Nuskhuri without a key. I maintain that no
Hebrew reader can read Phoenician without a key. I maintain that it
is completely unacceptable to represent Yiddish text in a Phoenician
font and have anyone recognize it at all.
>similarly, pointed Hebrew (which I point out is a small fraction of
>all the Hebrew in the world, most of which is written using the
>22CWSA in Square form)
>would be a perversity in any font but a Square one.
Unicode does not encode your mythical 22CWSA. Unicode encodes Square
Hebrew and its typographic richness. You want to force a rich set of
related scripts (which are proposed for unification as Phoenician)
into that model.
-- Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri May 07 2004 - 18:45:25 CDT