Re: The Geejay (was: Acceptable alembic glyph variants)

From: Andreas Stötzner (as@signographie.de)
Date: Thu Jan 03 2008 - 08:34:51 CST

Next message: Michael Everson: "Re: The Geejay"

Previous message: Andreas Stötzner: "The Geejay (was: Acceptable alembic glyph variants)"
In reply to: Michael Everson: "Re: The Geejay (was: Acceptable alembic glyph variants)"
Next in thread: Michael Everson: "Re: The Geejay (was: Acceptable alembic glyph variants)"
Reply: Michael Everson: "Re: The Geejay (was: Acceptable alembic glyph variants)"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

Am 03.01.2008 um 14:04 schrieb Michael Everson:

> At 13:12 +0100 2008-01-03, Andreas Stötzner wrote:
>
>> I complied a little consideration upon it, see
>> http://www.signographie.de/cms/front_content.php?
>> idart=232&changelang=2
>>
>> - Will be funny business for our case pairing enthusiasts :-)
>
> On foot of the shape of the letter I would consider encoding it as the
> capital form of U+0261, as LATIN CAPITAL LETTER SCRIPT G.

That would surely be wrong. The shape reveals that it is meant to be a
synthesis of G and j. This is something else than “some G”.

A:S

Next message: Michael Everson: "Re: The Geejay"
Previous message: Andreas Stötzner: "The Geejay (was: Acceptable alembic glyph variants)"
In reply to: Michael Everson: "Re: The Geejay (was: Acceptable alembic glyph variants)"
Next in thread: Michael Everson: "Re: The Geejay (was: Acceptable alembic glyph variants)"
Reply: Michael Everson: "Re: The Geejay (was: Acceptable alembic glyph variants)"
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 Jan 03 2008 - 08:37:37 CST