Re: The Geejay

From: Otto Stolz (Otto.Stolz@uni-konstanz.de)
Date: Thu Jan 03 2008 - 08:17:09 CST

Next message: Michael Everson: "Re: The Geejay"

Previous message: Michael Everson: "Re: The Geejay (was: Acceptable alembic glyph variants)"
In reply to: Michael Everson: "Re: The Geejay (was: Acceptable alembic glyph variants)"
Next in thread: Michael Everson: "Re: The Geejay"
Reply: Michael Everson: "Re: The Geejay"
Maybe reply: Dominikus Scherkl: "Re: The Geejay"
Maybe reply: Kenneth Whistler: "Re: The Geejay"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

Michael Everson schrieb:
>> http://www.signographie.de/cms/front_content.php?idart=232&changelang=2
...
> On foot of the shape of the letter I would consider encoding it as the
> capital form of U+0261, as LATIN CAPITAL LETTER SCRIPT G.

And what about that dot on the »j« part of the glyph?

Best wishes,
OS

Next message: Michael Everson: "Re: The Geejay"
Previous message: Michael Everson: "Re: The Geejay (was: Acceptable alembic glyph variants)"
In reply to: Michael Everson: "Re: The Geejay (was: Acceptable alembic glyph variants)"
Next in thread: Michael Everson: "Re: The Geejay"
Reply: Michael Everson: "Re: The Geejay"
Maybe reply: Dominikus Scherkl: "Re: The Geejay"
Maybe reply: Kenneth Whistler: "Re: The Geejay"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jan 03 2008 - 08:19:58 CST