From: John Hudson (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Thu Nov 07 2002 - 14:51:01 EST
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.
Tiro Typeworks www.tiro.com
Vancouver, BC email@example.com
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