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