Re: Preconditions for changing a representative glyph?

On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 9:35 AM, Asmus Freytag <asmusf_at_ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>
> For symbols, once you leave the canonical shape behind, there's always the
> argument that what you have is in fact a new symbol.
>
> There are some exceptions to this, where notational aspect of symbol use
> is so strong that variations really function identically and can be unified
> without issues. This might be the case in your example. However, in
> general, I would dispute that this is true for non-notational symbols.
>
> In the case you give, the "new" design is clearly not the canonical shape,
> because it deliberately innovates. If it ever replaces the other sign in a
> majority of uses (not just in NYC) then perhaps updating the glyph might be
> appropriate.
>
> At this time, we are far from that point.
>
> That we are far from that point is clear to me; I was asking if there is a
(semi-)formal definition of that point. What is "a majority of uses"?

Leo
Received on Wed May 29 2013 - 11:41:05 CDT