Re: Preconditions for changing a representative glyph?

Out of curiosity, has it happened before, that a glyph was updated (i.e.,
substantially changed) in the standard?

Cheers,

2013/5/29 Asmus Freytag <asmusf_at_ix.netcom.com>

> On 5/29/2013 8:39 AM, Leo Broukhis wrote:
>
>>
>> I'd like to ask: what is supposed to be the trigger condition for the UTC
>> to consider changing the representative glyph of
>> <your favorate symbol here> to <a novel> design?
>>
>>
> The answer: the purpose of the representative glyph is not to track
> fashions in representation but to give an easily recognized "orthodox"
> shape.
>
> In the case of symbols, shape matters differently than for letters (where
> you have a word context that allows even decorative font shapes to be
> "readable").
>
> 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.
>
> A./
>
>
Received on Wed May 29 2013 - 11:55:03 CDT