From: Michael Everson (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Thu May 10 2007 - 10:19:30 CDT
At 14:13 +0200 2007-05-10, TCaldwell@linotype.com wrote:
>I personally hope that the use of a capital ▀
>code point will be limited to supporting the
>correct transformation from upper to lower case
>and in historical context.
That is the intended use of the character.
>So we agree to the technical justification in the proposal. The conversion
>from lower uppercase SS to ▀ has always been a nuisance.
>>Your idea is fine, but at the end of the day it
>>falls to me to draw the glyph that goes in the
>>charts, and it is expected to harmonize with the
>>rest of the glyphs. And the UCS is an
>>International Standard, not just a DIN standard.
>No argument here, but it should be recognizable
>as the capital form of 00DF. A discussion on
>what this glyph should look like will not
>produce a unanimous decision and we do not have
>a consensus even within Linotype.
I understand. Currently the glyph at 3f in
is the favourite "vanilla" glyph.
>The contemporary use of a capital ▀ is
>considered to be evidence of low literacy and we
>teach our children not to use it. If we had to
>implement the glyph in our fonts we would put an
>SS ligature into 99.98 % of our fonts.
*That* solution would be very bad indeed, in my
opinion. It would offer opportunities for
spoofing (since CAPITAL SHARP S and CAPITAL S
CAPITAL S would look the same). Implementers of
the UCS should not choose "bad" glyphs because of
their views about literacy. If a person *wants*
to use a CAPITAL SHARP S, the glyph a vendor
supplies should be a "real" one if the vendor
supplies a glyph for U+1E9E in a given font.
Please see the original DIN proposal at
Asmus Freytag also wrote a long essay about this
which is also worth consideration.
-- Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu May 10 2007 - 10:26:17 CDT