Re: Dutch IJ & the austrian stamp's encoding

From: David Starner (
Date: Fri Jan 20 2006 - 00:48:11 CST

  • Next message: Jukka K. Korpela: "Re: Ellipsis"

    On 1/19/06, Kent Karlsson <> 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
    spelling difference?

    > 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
    distinction ourselves.

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jan 20 2006 - 00:50:55 CST