From: Andreas Stötzner (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue Dec 11 2007 - 08:45:00 CST
Am 04.12.2007 um 00:03 schrieb Kenneth Whistler:
> As for your font design, Andreas, in f_j_i_s.pdf, however elegant it
> might be perhaps for some general text purposes, I would consider
> it a non-starter as an *IPA* font. U+0284, in particular, is
> completely unrecognizable in that design.
Perhaps you’re suprised because you’ve seen for the very first time
this letter as it ought to look like. Given its verbal description is
meant seriously, the glyph is perfectly right there.
This is not about elegance but about accuracy. Let’s track it down
literally, step by step:
1. The ordinary j (006A) is “thought of” being the ancestor of 025F and
is definitely the basis for 0249. Than 025F should look like a j, which
it doesn’t in the UCS representation (no more lead-type- and
2. 025F is admittedly the basis for 0284, its top part being defined as
a “hook” but NOT as an “ascender”. “Hook” is a certain element which
occurs a couple of times in this range. So we are entitled to suppose
that all IPA’s hooks (blue cells, see j_j_j.tif) should match each
other for coherence. If than 0260, 029B and 02A0 feature hooks
definitely different from full-height crooked ascenders (e.g. 0253)
than there is no reason for dealing differently with 0284 in that
respect. (All full-height-hooks [cyan cells] depend on their attachment
to natural ascenders!).
3. When the aforementioned is logically right, than what you see here
is clearly recognizable as a “Latin small letter dotless j with stroke
and hook” and nothing else.
What’s misleading, on the other hand, is the UCS chart glyph.
The glyph is not the character, of course. But the glyph is (only for
the reader :-) the means by which he can recognize the character. As
there are many confusingly similar glyphs around, glyphics should be
taken as thoroughly as possible.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Dec 11 2007 - 08:50:06 CST