From: Asmus Freytag (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Thu May 17 2007 - 21:26:16 CDT
On 5/17/2007 6:33 PM, John Hudson wrote:
> Frank Ellermann wrote:
>> Werner LEMBERG wrote:
>>> Attached an image which shows that this is possible (at least with
>>> a sans serif script), and which IMHO is aesthetically pleasing.
>> Nice, and IMO clearly better than gamma-shaped proposals for SZlig.
> This sort of SS ligation is quote easy to do in most sans serif
> designs, but considerably more difficult to make convincing in a serif
> book face. Whatever the model form for the uppercase eszett becomes,
> it needs to be something that is as easily adaptable to different
> styles of typeface design as any other uppercase letter.
I don't know that I'd buy that as bluntly as you stated that. There are
some significant differences in the basic design of some letters between
serif and sans-serif, not to mention script or decorative styles.
Also, what do you mean by "model form"? If you allude to the
representative glyph in the Unicode charts, the only requirement that
such a glyph _must_ satisfy is that it be the most plain vanilla design
possible for a Times-like font. "Plain vanilla" being loosely defined as
eschewing any particular design quirks that would make the individual
font recognizable or the character stand out.
Only when such a form cannot serve to *identify* the character, should a
departure be considered. For example, for scripts with positional
shapes, if two characters have the identical form in isolated position,
the standard my show a medial form, to allow the characters to be
Despite the high level of (continued) interest in this character and its
glyph design, such is not the case here, and plain vanilla (times-like)
is what the representative glyph should strive for. Interesting designs
for sans-serif fonts are a fascinating topic in and of themselves, but
not part of the discussion to settle the design of a representative glyph.
PS: btw. I agree that almost anything looks better than gamma-shaped
proposals, but as I wrote before, what's considered acceptable will be
influenced over time by what's deployed.
> John Hudson
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu May 17 2007 - 21:28:12 CDT