Re: Dotless J with stroke.

Andreas Stötzner <[email protected]> Tue, 11 Dec 2007 15:45:00 +0100
Newsgroups gmane.text.unicode.devel
Message-ID <[email protected]>
Am 04.12.2007 um 00:03 schrieb Kenneth Whistler:

> =85
>
> As for your font design, Andreas, in f_j_i_s.pdf, however elegant it
> might be perhaps for some general text purposes, I would consider
> it a non-starter as an *IPA* font. U+0284, in particular, is
> completely unrecognizable in that design.

Perhaps you=92re suprised because you=92ve seen for the very first time=20
this letter as it ought to look like. Given its verbal description is=20
meant seriously, the glyph is perfectly right there.
This is not about elegance but about accuracy. Let=92s track it down=20
literally, step by step:

1. The ordinary j (006A) is =93thought of=94 being the ancestor of 025F a=
nd=20
is definitely the basis for 0249. Than 025F should look like a j, which=20
it doesn=92t in the UCS representation (no more lead-type- and=20
poor-man=92s-help-yourself-excuses please).
2. 025F is admittedly the basis for 0284, its top part being defined as=20
a =93hook=94 but NOT as an =93ascender=94. =93Hook=94 is a certain elemen=
t which=20
occurs a couple of times in this range. So we are entitled to suppose=20
that all IPA=92s hooks (blue cells, see j_j_j.tif) should match each=20
other for coherence. If than 0260, 029B and 02A0 feature hooks=20
definitely different from full-height crooked ascenders (e.g. 0253)=20
than there is no reason for dealing differently with 0284 in that=20
respect. (All full-height-hooks [cyan cells] depend on their attachment=20
to natural ascenders!).
3. When the aforementioned is logically right, than what you see here=20
is clearly recognizable as a =93Latin small letter dotless j with stroke=20
and hook=94 and nothing else.
What=92s misleading, on the other hand, is the UCS chart glyph.

The glyph is not the character, of course. But the glyph is (only for=20
the reader :-) the means by which he can recognize the character. As=20
there are many confusingly similar glyphs around, glyphics should be=20
taken as thoroughly as possible.

With regards,
A:S

http://www.signographie.de/cms/upload/fundstuecke/j_j_j.tif