From: Mark E. Shoulson (mark@kli.org)
Date: Sun Dec 07 2003 - 10:19:06 EST
On 12/07/03 08:55, Peter Jacobi wrote:
>Hi Mark, All,
>
>
>
>>I also agree, but I point out that the sufficiently perverse could come
>>up with some pretty tough examples. Applying color is a pretty benign
>>style, but what if I wanted a boldface circumflex on a normal letter?
>>Or even more obnoxious, a 10-point circumflex on a an 8-point letter?
>>These could be tricky to compute.
>>
>>
>
>Please have a look at the examples. This isn't a parallel to
>accents. The Tamil vowels and consonants in questions are
>clearly distinct side by side. They could have been styled using
>a mechanical typewriter by double-striking, underlining or
>switching to the second color. Individually.
>
Yes, I agree. The discussion had moved farther afield, though, to the
general case of styling combining sequences, so I was exploring other
combining sequences that are or could be pathological.
>>if you ask the system to do bizarre things, it's your own fault (while
>>applying color is not quite so bizarre).
>>
>>
>
>Emphasizing a single letter isn't bizarre. It is often used in educational
>material.
>
No, but changing font size between a letter and a diacritic is.
(and now I contradict myself with a counterexample. In
http://omega.enstb.org/yannis/pdf/biblical-hebrew94.pdf, Yannis
Haralambous notes--correctly--that when typesetting the Hebrew Bible,
letters that are written small hang from the top line and have
normal-sized vowels below them (and the vowels are below the baseline of
the normal text))
~mark
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Dec 07 2003 - 11:07:15 EST