Re: Preconditions for changing a representative glyph?

From: Manuel Strehl <>
Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 18:53:12 +0200

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


2013/5/29 Asmus Freytag <>

> 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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Wed May 29 2013 - 11:55:14 CDT