Re: Back to Coptic

From: John Hudson (
Date: Fri Jul 08 2005 - 12:12:12 CDT

  • Next message: Gregg Reynolds: "Re: Demystifying the Politburo (was: Re: Arabic encoding model (alas, static!))"

    Michael Everson wrote:

    >> Personally, I would include both forms in a font, but would probably
    >> make the form with the bar the default glyph simply because it seems
    >> much more common.

    > That would be a mistake, because the recommendation is to encode a text
    > with explicitly encoded combining abbreviation bars whenever an
    > abbreviation is wanted. So if I encode a text with my font that way, and
    > then somebody displays it in your font with a default barred glyph, the
    > result will be SHIMA SIMA with two bars over it.

    It wouldn't, in fact, because I'm smarter than that :) but I'll take your advice about
    the use of the abbreviation bar with SHIMA SIMA. It is a little odd that something that
    seems to be an encoded abbreviation should be encoded without the abbreviation bar, but if
    that's the model I will work with it one way or another.

    John Hudson

    Tiro Typeworks
    Vancouver, BC
    Currently reading:
    Truth and tolerance, by Benedict XVI, Cardinal Ratzinger as was
    War (revised edition), by Gwynne Dyer
    God's secret agents, by Alice Hogge

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jul 08 2005 - 12:13:33 CDT