From: Andreas Stötzner (email@example.com)
Date: Tue Dec 11 2007 - 11:34:59 CST
Am 11.12.2007 um 17:57 schrieb David Starner:
> On Dec 11, 2007 9:58 AM, Andreas Stötzner <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> Would we accept a naming "LATIN SMALL LETTER BARRED LONG S" for what
>> commonly know as being the Latin f ? That's it.
> We accept LATIN CAPITAL LETTER OI for something that has no relation
> to OI. In the larger world, we accept the United States of America for
> a country that's far from uniting all the states of America. Names are
> just names, and they're often less than accurate.
I think it is UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, not:
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
This is a key difference.
>> Perhaps you're suprised because you've seen for the very first time
>> this letter as it ought to look like.
> Perhaps how the character ought to look like has been defined long
> ago. The art of the typographer requires working within the range of
> what's currently acceptable.
No objection to that point. But I still claim that a standard should be
as precise as possible in these things. If the very name is blurred in
itself than a given additional information at least should provide
clarification: “tyographically based on 025F, not on 0283” – is not
And: “Just names” and “just glyphs” – you only make it obscure that way.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Dec 11 2007 - 11:37:32 CST