From: Michael Everson (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue Mar 16 2004 - 13:49:50 EST
At 14:24 +0000 2004-03-16, Marion Gunn wrote:
>Irish in Roman script is written i with dot above, Irish in
>traditional script is written i without dot above.
Irish lower-case "i" is written with the Latin-script character
U+0069, which has as its capital U+0049.
A dotted glyph for the lower-case "i" is generally used in Roman
fonts, while an undotted glyph is always preferred in Gaelic fonts.
Further information about Gaelic typefaces can be found at
>The current flooding of our local advertising and publishing markets
>by various non-native uncial fonts to write our language goes
>against tradition in imposing on us that unwanted dot.
A number of type designers provide quite excellent Gaelic fonts with
the correct glyphs.
One might observe that if local Irish markets are "flooded" with
inauthentic Gaelic fonts it is nevertheless Irish advertising and
publishing agencies which are doing the "imposing" of the unwanted
dot. It is a pity that they do not choose authentic fonts, but it is
certainly no conspiracy to impose dots upon the Irish people.
Authenticity in fonts is a valuable criterion for judging their
usefulness; "nativeness" is irrelevant except to the chauvinist.
>Is there any way at all that using Unicode can help support our tradition?
Unicode is a character set for data interchange. "Using it" cannot of
itself do anything about the choices made by ill-educated sign makers
-- Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Mar 16 2004 - 14:28:36 EST