From: John Hudson (email@example.com)
Date: Fri Jul 08 2005 - 12:12:12 CDT
Michael Everson wrote:
>> Personally, I would include both forms in a font, but would probably
>> make the form with the bar the default glyph simply because it seems
>> much more common.
> That would be a mistake, because the recommendation is to encode a text
> with explicitly encoded combining abbreviation bars whenever an
> abbreviation is wanted. So if I encode a text with my font that way, and
> then somebody displays it in your font with a default barred glyph, the
> result will be SHIMA SIMA with two bars over it.
It wouldn't, in fact, because I'm smarter than that :) but I'll take your advice about
the use of the abbreviation bar with SHIMA SIMA. It is a little odd that something that
seems to be an encoded abbreviation should be encoded without the abbreviation bar, but if
that's the model I will work with it one way or another.
-- Tiro Typeworks www.tiro.com Vancouver, BC firstname.lastname@example.org Currently reading: Truth and tolerance, by Benedict XVI, Cardinal Ratzinger as was War (revised edition), by Gwynne Dyer God's secret agents, by Alice Hogge
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jul 08 2005 - 12:13:33 CDT