From: John Hudson (email@example.com)
Date: Tue Dec 11 2007 - 13:20:33 CST
Andreas StĂ¶tzner wrote:
> Itâ€™s splendid if we folks know it better, but from a technical standard
> I do expect avoiding of such oddities.
In this case, the people to take this up with would be the International Phonetic
Association, since these are the people who a) reliably use a form that resembles a barred
esh and b) call it 'Hooked barred dotless J'. But perhaps this makes more sense if you
look at the form of the related 'Barred dotless J' as typically found in IPA use, and then
follow my point about the hook flowing from the main stem: you end up with the IPA form of
'Hooked barred dotless J'.
The problem, and the reason for my original question on this topic, is how to interpret
the letter shapes in designs in which the j does not have a hooked descender. My
inclination is that the 'Barred dotless J' and 'Hooked barred dotless J' should probably
both take a hooked descender, even if the regular j does not, as this is in keeping with
the expected conventions of the IPA alphabet which is, after all, a typographically
contrived notation system with particular 'cultural' norms.
-- Tiro Typeworks www.tiro.com Gulf Islands, BC firstname.lastname@example.org I'm like that Umberto Eco guy, but without the writing. -- anonymous caller
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Dec 11 2007 - 13:24:22 CST