From: Michael Everson (everson@evertype.com)
Date: Thu Apr 03 2003 - 08:34:53 EST
At 01:45 -0600 2003-04-03, Peter_Constable@sil.org wrote:
>I can't comment on the historical development of this practice and whether
>it might have arisen from confusion with ogonek. I think the library on our
>center has IJAL from its inception (nearly 70 years), so I could jump back
>a decade or two or three to see what I can find out. In the mean time, how
>is U. of Chicago Press to migrate their publishing of IJAL to use Unicode?
>Either they encode a bunch of base-ogonek characters (most of which would
>still need to be proposed) and use fonts that maintain "poor typographic
>practice" of having ogoneks that look like retroflex hooks, or they need to
>revise their typographic practice and switch to using typeforms with real
>ogoneks. The former has obvious concerns, but the latter doesn't remove all
>concerns -- the legacy practice continues to haunt. As I have looked
>through various sources, it has been apparent to me that
>authors/editors/publishers often endeavour to maintain original typography
>in quotations. So, with a bunch of base-ogonek characters encoded, it will
>be unclear to them how to represent quotations from IJAL.
Peter, I often suggest this, and you rarely take me up on it, but I
for one will not try to debug this kind of discussion in plain text
without seeing all the actual glyphs. PLEASE write a discussion paper
with a series of examples from a series of publications, illustrating
the practices and the problems, and then we can all be informed
enough to make recommendations. What "a bunch of base-ogonek
characters" could mean is a mystery to me.
-- Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Apr 03 2003 - 09:34:10 EST