From: James Cloos (email@example.com)
Date: Mon Aug 10 2009 - 21:43:14 CDT
>>>>> "Asmus" == Asmus Freytag <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
Asmus> But claiming that both new and old version of some logo, no
Asmus> matter the difference in their design, are "glyph" variants
Asmus> of each other would assert that what is encoded is the owning
Asmus> organization. If fonts were created on that principle, then
Asmus> existing documents created with the "old" logo could one day be
Asmus> opened on another system and show the "new" logo. Or vice versa.
Asmus obviously read the earlier post as suggesting that fonts sould
just put the new logo at the cp the old logo currently occupies.
I read the earlier post as suggesting that <U+3004><U+FE00> should be
used to specify the new glyph.
(That is <JAPANESE INDUSTRIAL STANDARD SYMBOL><VARIATION SELECTOR-1>.)
I wonder which of those the earlier poster actually meant?
-- James Cloos <email@example.com> OpenPGP: 1024D/ED7DAEA6
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Aug 10 2009 - 21:46:19 CDT