bugFree UCS Outline Fonts - Bugs: bug #23580, Letterlike characters: design

 
 

bug #23580: Letterlike characters: design

Submitted by:  Steve White <Stevan_White>
Submitted on:  Sat 14 Jun 2008 11:16:05 AM UTC  
 
Category: character rangeSeverity: 3 - Normal
Item Group: glyph(s) uglyStatus: Proceeding
Privacy: PublicAssigned to: Steve White <Stevan_White>
Open/Closed: OpenRelease: 2006-01-26

Add a New Comment (Rich MarkupRich Markup):
   

You are not logged in

Please log in, so followups can be emailed to you.

 

Mon 27 Oct 2008 07:13:46 PM UTC, comment #1:

These characters make more sense in the context of the Mathematical Alphanumeric Symbols range

See also bug 23056
https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/index.php?23056

The plan will be to take glyphs from that range, which in turn are adapted from the LaTeX fonts.

But there are still screwy problems: h-bar for instance is meant to be a math symbol, in an italic face. What should be its glyph in SerifItalic? Even more italic? Even more oblique? This seems silly. (I think this whole business of making Unicode slots based on letter style was very questionable anyway.)

The Unicode samples show Planck's constant and h-bar as italic letters, but some of the descriptions for other characters in this range explicitly specify an italic style. And at least one sample, u+2139, shows a very bold glyph in the medium roman. Should the bold version be even bolder?

In those cases, I'll just say the italic and roman versions are the same.

Steve White <Stevan_White>
Project AdministratorIn charge of this item.
Sat 14 Jun 2008 11:16:05 AM UTC, original submission:

This is from Jacob Poon's report of 2007-10,
https://savannah.gnu.org/support/?106274

The letterlike range has design issues, because it specifies styled letters that are to be implemented within a font style.
Often it isn't clear what to do.

----------------------------------------------
The script glyphs and planck constants in Letterlike Symbols (U+2100-214F) in the non-italic fonts do not fit the design characteristic of the font. The glyphs in non-italic fonts should be strighten up.

? I agree that the script glyphs are very slanted, even for handwriting.
Where did they come from?
Maybe there is a less slanty script version.
The Planck glyphs are arguable.

The bold versions of script and black-letter glyphs (U+2100-214F) have different stroke paths from the non-bold counterparts. The bug does not exist in other font families.

? The script and blackletter glyphs in bold are from different faces than the non-bold counterparts. I don't see this as necessarily a bad thing. Not all faces ought to have a bold version.
And then there is the general question of how to handle different face designs within a single face of a font...
~

Steve White <Stevan_White>
Project AdministratorIn charge of this item.

 

(Note: upload size limit is set to 16384 kB, after insertion of the required escape characters.)

Attach File(s):
   
   
Comment:
   

No files currently attached

 

Depends on the following items: None found

Items that depend on this one: None found

 

Carbon-Copy List
  • -unavailable- added by Stevan_White (Submitted the item)
  • -unavailable- added by Stevan_White
  •  

    Do you think this task is very important?
    If so, you can click here to add your encouragement to it.
    This task has 0 encouragements so far.

    Only logged-in users can vote.

     

    Please enter the title of George Orwell's famous dystopian book (it's a date):

     

     

    Follow 2 latest changes.

    Date Changed By Updated Field Previous Value => Replaced By
    Mon 27 Oct 2008 07:13:46 PM UTCStevan_WhiteStatusNeed info=>Proceeding
    Sat 14 Jun 2008 11:16:05 AM UTCStevan_WhiteCarbon-Copy-=>Added -unavailable-

    Back to the top


    Powered by Savane 3.1-cleanup