Re: Dotless J with stroke.

Andreas St=C3=B6tzner wrote:

> It=E2=80=99s splendid if we folks know it better, but from a technical =
standard=20
> I do expect avoiding of such oddities.

In this case, the people to take this up with would be the International =
Phonetic=20
Association, since these are the people who a) reliably use a form that r=
esembles a barred=20
esh and b) call it 'Hooked barred dotless J'. But perhaps this makes more=
 sense if you=20
look at the form of the related 'Barred dotless J' as typically found in =
IPA use, and then=20
follow my point about the hook flowing from the main stem: you end up wit=
h the IPA form of=20
'Hooked barred dotless J'.

The problem, and the reason for my original question on this topic, is ho=
w to interpret=20
the letter shapes in designs in which the j does not have a hooked descen=
der. My=20
inclination is that the 'Barred dotless J' and 'Hooked barred dotless J' =
should probably=20
both take a hooked descender, even if the regular j does not, as this is =
in keeping with=20
the expected conventions of the IPA alphabet which is, after all, a typog=
raphically=20
contrived notation system with particular 'cultural' norms.

John Hudson

--=20

Tiro Typeworks        www.tiro.com
Gulf Islands, BC      [email protected]

I'm like that Umberto Eco guy, but without
the writing.   -- anonymous caller