Re: Dotless J with stroke.

Am 11.12.2007 um 17:57 schrieb David Starner:

> On Dec 11, 2007 9:58 AM, Andreas St=F6tzner <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Would we accept a naming "LATIN SMALL LETTER BARRED LONG S" for what=20
>> we
>> commonly know as being the Latin f ? That's it.
>
> We accept LATIN CAPITAL LETTER OI for something that has no relation
> to OI. In the larger world, we accept the United States of America for
> a country that's far from uniting all the states of America. Names are
> just names, and they're often less than accurate.

I think it is UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, not:
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
This is a key difference.
>
>> Perhaps you're suprised because you've seen for the very first time
>> this letter as it ought to look like.
>
> Perhaps how the character ought to look like has been defined long
> ago. The art of the typographer requires working within the range of
> what's currently acceptable.

No objection to that point. But I still claim that a standard should be=20
as precise as possible in these things. If the very name is blurred in=20
itself than a given additional information at least should provide=20
clarification: =93tyographically based on 025F, not on 0283=94 =96 is not=
=20
clarifying.

And: =93Just names=94 and =93just glyphs=94 =96 you only make it obscure =
that way.

A:S