Re: A .notdef glyph

From: Michael Everson (everson@evertype.com)
Date: Thu Nov 07 2002 - 07:26:39 EST

Next message: Dominikus Scherkl: "FW: ct, fj and blackletter ligatures"

Previous message: William Overington: "Re: ct, fj and blackletter ligatures"
In reply to: William Overington: "Re: A .notdef glyph"
Next in thread: John Hudson: "Re: A .notdef glyph"
Reply: John Hudson: "Re: A .notdef glyph"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

At 10:53 +0000 2002-11-07, William Overington wrote:

>In fact, I will try to write it up in the form of a case history in
>the style of a portfolio item for a National Vocational
>Qualification portfolio of the system used in England.

Please don't. William, no one really wanted you to make a .notdef
glyph. John was pulling your leg. Sorry I responded to the matter.
Please don't waste your time and ours by writing up a case history.

-- 
Michael Everson * * Everson Typography *  * http://www.evertype.com

Next message: Dominikus Scherkl: "FW: ct, fj and blackletter ligatures"
Previous message: William Overington: "Re: ct, fj and blackletter ligatures"
In reply to: William Overington: "Re: A .notdef glyph"
Next in thread: John Hudson: "Re: A .notdef glyph"
Reply: John Hudson: "Re: A .notdef glyph"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 07 2002 - 08:21:29 EST