From: Asmus Freytag (asmusf@ix.netcom.com)
Date: Tue May 08 2007 - 01:31:32 CDT
On 5/7/2007 9:27 PM, John Hudson wrote:
> Michael Everson wrote:
>
>> See http://www.evertype.com/standards/iso10646/pdf/sharp-s.png where
>> I have given an F, J, U, ß, long-s, and two capital sharp esses. The
>> second of these is the one under ballot, made in discussion with
>> Andreas Stötzner, who suggested taking the stroke and curve of the U
>> and the finial of a J. I don't find it unpleasant or inappropriate. I
>> tried hacking one based on an F but I like the U-based one better.
>
Pity you (Michael) don't show a B in comparison. I suspect that this
sample would not be distinct enough from a B, but can't tell. (It must
be distinct even, and particularly, when no B is present).
> I tried to Trajan test: can this letter be made in a convincing way
> that harmonises with the Roman inscriptional lettering, i.e. with the
> source of our uppercase alphabet? I'm not convinced, but I am sure
> that to work at all it must be made completely without reference to
> lowercase details or proportions:
> http://www.tiro.com/John/TrajanEszett.gif
Very nice!
>
> Of course, none of this serves as or is intended as an argument
> against encoding this particular character. It is a general grump
> about encoding as parts of writing systems characters that have not
> followed the evolutionary path of actual writing.
What do you think the reaction to the first J or U or W was? And what's
about the first Thorn (and why were people so eager to get rid of it ;-) )
A./
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue May 08 2007 - 01:33:10 CDT
