Re: Irish dotless I

From: Michael Everson (
Date: Tue Mar 16 2004 - 14:32:54 EST

  • Next message: Philippe Verdy: "Re: About the Kikaku script for Mende, and an existing font for it"

    At 14:06 -0500 2004-03-16, wrote:
    >Peter Kirk scripsit:
    > > It has the disadvantage of making these fonts useless for Turkish and
    > > Azeri, and more fundamentally so than fonts which have <f,i> ligatures
    > > with no visible dot.

    As soon as someone commissions a Gaelic font from me which needs
    dotted lower-case i for Turkish or Azeri, I shall let you know.

    > And of course the fonts would not be acceptable to
    > > most users of English and other Latin script languages. So any such font
    > > will be restricted to a small niche market.

    Gaelic fonts without dots on the i's are perfectly acceptable for
    English and other Latin-script languages. Unfortunately, the makers
    of American Uncial (curse it) decided it needed a dot, and made the
    dot a fat acute mark into the bargain.

    >Inevitably so. It's a mistake to think that because Unicode unifies character
    >sets, that it also requires or even prefers "unified" fonts. In anything
    >but the most unusual circumstances, using Gaelic fonts for anything but Irish
    >(and very marginally Scottish Gaelic and Old English) is a typographical
    >travesty, akin to using Naskh-style Arabic fonts for Persian.

    There's nothing wrong with using Gaelic fonts for English.

    Michael Everson * * Everson Typography *  *

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Mar 16 2004 - 15:20:51 EST