From: David Starner (email@example.com)
Date: Fri Jan 20 2006 - 00:48:11 CST
On 1/19/06, Kent Karlsson <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Note also that there are texts (set in lead type during the 19th
> century) in which diaeresis above are used together with e above
> in the (apparent) "same" font.
There are texts set in the early days of English printing with two
seperate forms of r, one of which looks like a script z. Is that a
> an "author" (= whoever is responsible for the text)
> should decide on the spelling and have that spelling respected by
> any ("general-purpose") font.
The person who chose the font is responsible for the text. We aren't
exactly talking about general-purpose fonts here; these would
generally be specialized decrotive fonts. But unlike your example,
they are as useful as any font that's not a standard reading font.
> In addition, many people do spelling substitutions
> (like diaeresis above to tilde above or macron above;
Why is g with loop and g without not a spelling difference, but ÷ with
two dots and ÷ with a bar a spelling difference? If Joe Shm÷ writes
out a German manuscript with those bars in the place of dots including
in his name, and types it into a computer with the dots, he's
obviously not making a distinction, and I see no gain in making the
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jan 20 2006 - 00:50:55 CST