From: James Kass (email@example.com)
Date: Thu Mar 24 2005 - 20:04:47 CST
Peter Kirk wrote,
> >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?
Because their designers understand the need to make the distinction.
At least, that's my guess. I haven't spoken to either of the designers
about this specific issue, though.
When I drew glyphs for Code2001 for U+1D6FC and U+1D44E, I knew the need
to be able to visually tell the glyphs apart and designed accordingly.
> After all, the main audience for Doulos SIL is not
> IPA but general purpose multilingual typesetting.
General purpose multilingual typesetting includes IPA transcription.
> And for such purposes
> the desired behaviour is to change the glyph shape for italics.
Desired behaviour appears to depend upon the desirer.
> But I agree with Alec's point that it would be helpful to have a way of
> suppressing that glyph change, ...
There is. Choose an appropriate font.
> ... 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.
We already have separate "a" characters: U+0061 AND U+0251.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Mar 24 2005 - 20:06:19 CST