From: Kent Karlsson (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Wed Dec 12 2007 - 03:35:42 CST
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
> > 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.
> 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
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
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.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Dec 12 2007 - 03:38:29 CST