Re: A .notdef glyph

From: Youtie Effaight (
Date: Thu Nov 07 2002 - 13:23:43 EST

  • Next message: Marco Cimarosti: "RE: ct, fj and blackletter ligatures"

    Michael Everson wrote:
    >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, William, and John H...

    I didn't think John was pulling William's leg. My reading of the
    original note is that John was suggesting an interesting and USEFUL
    way for William to spend some of his boundless energy for innovation,
    rather than wasting his energy on USELESS and uninteresting pursuits.

    A ".notdef" glyph that is more sophisticated than a square or other
    simply polygon would be potentially useful, and certainly more
    of service to the community than any other project I've seen
    William leap upon with enthusiasm.

    William obviously didn't read the assignment carefully enough, and
    if I were the teacher, I would have given him an "F".

    If William wants to write up a Case History and copyright something
    and thereby reap the eternal thanks of posterity and the attendant
    glory thereof, I should think he should work at something requiring
    more intellect and innovation than a four-sided polygon. To that end
    I suggest he re-read the assignment, then go off and spend at least
    a year contemplating the problem and writing up the case history
    before coming back with an award winning design and a thesis to
    expound its virtues.

    Let the chaos resume.

            -- Youtie "f8" Effaight

    STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 07 2002 - 14:15:27 EST