Re: Preconditions for changing a representative glyph?

From: Leo Broukhis <>
Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 09:38:06 -0700

On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 9:35 AM, Asmus Freytag <> wrote:

> For symbols, once you leave the canonical shape behind, there's always the
> argument that what you have is in fact a new symbol.
> There are some exceptions to this, where notational aspect of symbol use
> is so strong that variations really function identically and can be unified
> without issues. This might be the case in your example. However, in
> general, I would dispute that this is true for non-notational symbols.
> In the case you give, the "new" design is clearly not the canonical shape,
> because it deliberately innovates. If it ever replaces the other sign in a
> majority of uses (not just in NYC) then perhaps updating the glyph might be
> appropriate.
> At this time, we are far from that point.
> That we are far from that point is clear to me; I was asking if there is a
(semi-)formal definition of that point. What is "a majority of uses"?

Received on Wed May 29 2013 - 11:41:05 CDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Wed May 29 2013 - 11:41:06 CDT