From: Mark E. Shoulson (mark@kli.org)
Date: Tue Mar 16 2004 - 20:47:14 EST
Peter Kirk wrote:
> On 16/03/2004 07:35, Carl W. Brown wrote:
>
>> ...
>>
>> I suspect that just changing the font to eliminate the dot will be
>> easier.
>> Software won't have to be changed, existing code pages will not have
>> to be
>> changed, searches will work, etc.
>>
>>
>>
> It has the disadvantage of making these fonts useless for Turkish and
> Azeri, and more fundamentally so than fonts which have <f,i> ligatures
> with no visible dot. And of course the fonts would not be acceptable
> to most users of English and other Latin script languages. So any such
> font will be restricted to a small niche market.
You say that like it's a bad thing...
Of course Celtic uncial fonts will have appeal only to a limited
market. But you shouldn't have to respell your words when the font
changes (as you would if Irish went to dotless-i, since when printed in
conventional fonts, it does have a dot on its i). We're after a
particular look here, and so a particular font. That font has limited
appeal? So does the look we're after. Someone who wants to write
Turkish in Irish-looking uncials will have to come up with his own
clever font that manages to have dotted and dotless i's and still look okay.
> On the other hand, the change to Unicode required for Irish to use
> dotless i would be rather trivial, simply adding Irish to the existing
> list currently consisting of Turkish and Azeri, to which Tatar,
> Bashkir, Gagauz, Karakalpak and various minority languages of
> Azerbaijan should also be added.
Yeah, but then your spelling would be wrong every time you decided to
print in Times Roman instead of Celtic Pride Bold.
~mark
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Mar 16 2004 - 21:22:54 EST