RE: PH technical issues (was RE: Why Fraktur is irrelevant

From: D. Starner (
Date: Sat May 29 2004 - 00:32:13 CDT

  • Next message: James Kass: "RE: PH technical issues (was RE: Why Fraktur is irrelevant"

    "Peter Constable" <> writes:

    > Alternate scenario (desireable):
    > The editor receives submissions as described above. Because Phoenician
    > script and Hebrew script are encoded distinctly, there is never any
    > concern as to how text provided to reviewers will appear. She saves many
    > hours of work both in preparing submissions for reviewers and in final
    > typesetting. Embarrassing errors and the need to publish corrigenda are
    > significantly reduced.
    > Now tell me that's an unrealistic or trivial scenario.

    “The unification of these alphabets into a single Old Italic script
    requires language-specific fonts because the glyphs most commonly
    used may differ somewhat depending on the language being
    represented.” — The Unicode Standard, “Old Italic”, page 336.

    “For actual use, it might be advisable to use a seperate font for each
    Runic system.” — Ibid, “Runic”, page 342.

    I’d say it’s an unrealistic scenario.

    Sign-up for Ads Free at

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat May 29 2004 - 00:33:14 CDT