From: Peter Kirk (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Thu Mar 24 2005 - 18:56:44 CST
On 25/03/2005 00:08, James Kass wrote:
>Peter Kirk wrote,
>>Or try Doulos SIL, which, although not strictly designed for IPA, has
>>been carefully designed with all the needed characters and all the
>>possible smarts for IPA - and will also display slanted normal glyphs as
>>it has (so far) no italic version.
>Exactly. And since the developers of both Doulos SIL and Cardo well know
>the need to maintain such distinctions, we should expect that any future
>italic versions would do so.
But why should they? After all, the main audience for Doulos SIL is not
IPA but general purpose multilingual typesetting. And for such purposes
the desired behaviour is to change the glyph shape for italics. And
there are already Doulos italic glyphs used in non-Unicode Doulos fonts,
which follow the regular typesetting convention.
But I agree with Alec's point that it would be helpful to have a way of
suppressing that glyph change, because it is a significant difference in
character properties, the preservation of which is necessary for proper
representation of IPA and of the Fe'fe' language - and sometimes in
other scholarly transcriptions e.g. this distinction is made in a
Persian grammar book I used to have. So, I would want to propose a
separate "a" character, or perhaps a variation sequence, which is always
rendered with a double loop, for use in IPA, Fe'fe' etc. The separate
"g" for IPA is good precedent, although in that case the distinction is
not a regular/italic difference but one between different fonts.
Actually, to me the best argument against Alec's point is that IPA
shapes are supposed to be fixed and therefore not italicised at all. But
that doesn't apply to Fe'fe'.
-- Peter Kirk email@example.com (personal) firstname.lastname@example.org (work) http://www.qaya.org/ -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.8.1 - Release Date: 23/03/2005
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Mar 24 2005 - 18:57:19 CST