From: John Hudson (john@tiro.ca)
Date: Tue Jan 10 2006 - 11:53:06 CST
Kent Karlsson wrote:
> And I still REALLY STRONGLY dislike this too liberal interpretation of
> glyph variability.
>
> An "e" (or "E", that would be, just barely, within allowable
> variability)
> above (or slightly "inside") a letter be encoded as U+0364,
> COMBINING LATIN SMALL LETTER E, NOT as U+0308.
> U+0308, COMBINING DIAERESIS, should always be imaged as
> "two-dots-above-like".
Kent, I very specifically said that the variant German umlaut form of superscript E is
found in *display* lettering and typography, i.e. in certain styles of lettering found in
titling, inscriptions and calligraphy. But the text is still normal German text, and in
electronic formats should be spelled according to normal German encoding. I have seen
display fonts in which the Ö and Ü are designed with small letter E within the larger
letterform, following models found in formal German calligraphic caps. Are you saying that
when the user switches to this font he or she should also change the encoding of the text?
Sorry, Kent, but O and U with the small E form are long-recognised German glyph variants
for the umlauted vowels, and you shouldn't be encoding the text using something other than
the umlauted vowels.
> Likewise for V and U. Or would you encode the V in that stamp sample as
> U?
> I do hope not.
If I wanted the text to be searchable, spell-checkable and sortable as standard German
text, you bet I would.
John Hudson
-- Tiro Typeworks www.tiro.com Vancouver, BC john@tiro.ca *Note new e-mail address: john@tiro.ca*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jan 10 2006 - 12:10:13 CST