From: Andreas Stötzner (as@signographie.de)
Date: Fri May 11 2007 - 05:30:54 CDT
Am 10. Mai 2007 um 17:19 schrieb Michael Everson:
>
> I understand. Currently the glyph at 3f in
> http://www.evertype.com/standards/iso10646/pdf/capital-sharp-s.pdf is
> the favourite "vanilla" glyph.
A decision about the favourable default glyph should be based on
samples in which the rhythm of dark and light strokes are applied
appropriately. This is, sorry for that, not the case with many of the
glyphs Michael E. presents here. Therefor they look unsatisfying.
As for the code chart I strongly recommend to stick to the glyph
presented by DIN on p.1 of the proposal (N3227r) for this choice is a
result from considerations based on extensive historical and graphical
research, undertaken by myself and others.
Various documents on this topics are to be downloaded at
http://www.signographie.de/cms/signa_9.htm (scroll down the page);
here you may see that the suggested “Dresden glyph” is the one also
favoured by some German type designers. There’s also a couple of free
Eszett-fonts available on this page.
As a contribution to this discussion I particularily recommend the doc.
http://www.signographie.de/cms/upload/pdf/SIGNA9_SHARP_S_variants.pdf
in which you will find all of the models under consideration and a lot
more.
Just a brief comment to the variants in this document:
1.a is the glyph which should be considered first for the model of the
default glyph.
Group 2. is rather unsuitable for most fonts.
3.a to 3.g are those with the S-shaped right side. This is utmost
tricky to draw and semantically highly questionable, since the actual
nature of the ß is NOT s_s or S_S, despite all biases which repeat
claiming that.
4.a to 4.k show the B-shaped variants. These are easily to write and to
design, yet even easily to get mixed up by people with lowercase ß or
uppercase B.
The groups 5. and 6. show suggestions made in history by various
contributors, they are incorporated in this chart only to demonstrate
that these are but curiosities, out of question for real use.
Prefering the ezh-like shape for the right part gives a reference to
the ezh-like written z in early German writing and printing. It should
not be seen as a connection to the anglo-saxon tradition of the ezh.
Nobody cares that the glyph of the double-u is nowadays a double-v as a
matter of fact.
A:S
________________________________________________________________________
_______
Andreas Stötzner Signographie
S I G N A – Beiträge zur Signographie – Willkommen auf
www.signographie.de
Internationaler Arbeitskreis Signographie DIN Unicode-Consortium
Gutenberg-Gesellschaft MUFI ATypI
as@signographie.de as@schlossgoseck.de Tel. +49 -34296 - 7 48 49
Fax +49 -34296 - 7 48 15
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri May 11 2007 - 11:33:20 CDT