RE: Dotless J with stroke.

From: Kent Karlsson (
Date: Wed Dec 12 2007 - 03:35:42 CST

  • Next message: James Kass: "Re: Dotless J with stroke."

    Kenneth Whistler wrote:
    > > So I would conclude that an esh-like or turned f-like glyph would just
    > > be approximants, and not the intended glyph for any font. So please
    > > make Latin small letter dotless j with stroke and hook look
    > according
    > > to its name
    > There is very little point in designing a glyph that
    > looks significantly different from what the IPA
    > shows there in their own charts, because the point

    Nor did I suggest to. But that is in just one font,
    and I would assume that more fonts than ones with
    that exact glyph design would be suitable.

    > of U+0284 is to serve as *that* character.
    > The Unicode representative glyph could be tweaked
    > a little to match the IPA glyph more closely. In particular,
    > the bar should be a little higher, and it wouldn't
    > hurt to distinguish the top hook a little more from
    > the top hook of the esh.

    I agree.

    > But other than that, talking about how a dotless j
    > with stroke and hook should look, based on its name,
    > is an exercise in futility. Asmus is correct.

    There is still a logic to the glyph, and that logic
    is not based on esh, nor on f, but on j. And neither nor
    show an esh-like or turned f-like glyph for it, but
    a j-like glyph (more so in the second chart since
    it there keeps the serif of the j, and the font there
    is seriffed).

    And I would still say that the glyphs for this character
    that look like an esh with TWO strokes (some fonts have
    that for U+0284) are plain wrong.

    Had the name of these j-like characters been wrong,
    this would not have mattered. But it appears that
    the names of these characters are not wrong at all.

            /kent k

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Dec 12 2007 - 03:38:29 CST