Re: A .notdef glyph

From: John Hudson (
Date: Thu Nov 07 2002 - 14:51:01 EST

  • Next message: John Cowan: "Re: A .notdef glyph"

    At 13:07 11/7/2002, John Cowan wrote:

    >Wouldn't the glyph for the GETA SIGN be suitable as a .notdef glyph?
    >That seems to be just what GETA is for.

    Aha! Thank you, I'd never noticed that before. I think the GETA MARK would
    be ambiguous to a non CJK user, but I like the idea of the strong
    horizontal bars very much. The only problem I find with the conventional
    empty box and its recommended variants, is that they do not stand out as
    well as they might, especially in print. The GETA MARK certainly stands out.

    Inspired by this, I have made a new .notdef glyph:

    I'm not going to provide a lengthy explanation of the design process or
    otherwise try to justify why I think this works. If it isn't obvious, then
    clearly it doesn't work.

    John Hudson

    Tiro Typeworks
    Vancouver, BC

    It is necessary that by all means and cunning,
    the cursed owners of books should be persuaded
    to make them available to us, either by argument
    or by force. - Michael Apostolis, 1467

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 07 2002 - 16:52:49 EST