Re: Dotless J with stroke.

From: Andreas Stötzner (
Date: Tue Dec 11 2007 - 11:34:59 CST

  • Next message: John Hudson: "Re: Dotless J with stroke."

    Am 11.12.2007 um 17:57 schrieb David Starner:

    > On Dec 11, 2007 9:58 AM, Andreas Stötzner <> wrote:
    >> Would we accept a naming "LATIN SMALL LETTER BARRED LONG S" for what
    >> we
    >> 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:
    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