From: Michael Everson (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Fri May 11 2007 - 11:56:31 CDT
At 12:30 +0200 2007-05-11, Andreas Stötzner wrote:
>>I understand. Currently the glyph at 3f in
>>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.
Of course many of them are 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.
Well, we cannot just pop in an Andron glyph into
the code charts, which is why I have been
exploring designs for the Times-like font I am
using. The glyph 3f in my document is a Dresden
glyph as you recommend.
-- Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri May 11 2007 - 12:00:11 CDT