Re: Ligatures fi and ffi

From: Hans Aberg (haberg@math.su.se)
Date: Thu Jun 02 2005 - 17:55:35 CDT

Next message: Sarasvati: "Banter by any other name would bore as much"

Previous message: Jon Hanna: "Re: Ligatures fi and ffi"
In reply to: Jon Hanna: "Re: Ligatures fi and ffi"
Next in thread: Mark E. Shoulson: "Re: Ligatures fi and ffi"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

At 23:09 +0100 2005/06/02, Jon Hanna wrote:
>Hans Aberg wrote:
>>At 19:43 +0100 2005/06/02, Jon Hanna wrote:
>>
>>>Hans Aberg wrote:
>>>
>>>>It seems me that, when considering a new glyph, one should strive
>>>>to figure if there is any semantic value to it; if not, it should
>>>>probably not be added.
>>>
>>>
>>>Hans, what the hell are you talking about?
>>
>>
>>Sorry, I do not see what you are hinting at here.
>
>That your suggestion has zero relevance to this list.

It seems you have misunderstood the context. So an explanation of
your comments are in place.

-- 
   Hans Aberg

Next message: Sarasvati: "Banter by any other name would bore as much"
Previous message: Jon Hanna: "Re: Ligatures fi and ffi"
In reply to: Jon Hanna: "Re: Ligatures fi and ffi"
Next in thread: Mark E. Shoulson: "Re: Ligatures fi and ffi"
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 Jun 02 2005 - 17:57:47 CDT