Recent changes to 54: Design of glyph for U+E8BF

#54 Design of glyph for U+E8BF

Peter Baker — Tue, 12 Dec 2017 22:38:46 -0000

That is certainly a possible form, but position of the squiggle in Junicode is well attested: see e.g. this example from the Gutenberg Bible. Junicode does have several variant shapes of glyphs--mainly when these are mandated by MUFI, or for backwards compatibility when the Junicode design itself has changed. But I am reluctant to admit too many variant shapes, for the purpose of a font like this is not to enable editors to reproduce the look of their sources, but rather the meaning. There is no possibility of confusion here.

#54 Design of glyph for U+E8BF

Robin Walker — Mon, 04 Dec 2017 17:04:04 -0000

Second attachment

Design of glyph for U+E8BF

Robin Walker — Mon, 04 Dec 2017 17:03:29 -0000

In Junicode, the design of the glyph for U+E8BF LATIN SMALL LETTER Q LIGATED WITH FINAL ET matches that shown in the MUFI specification. In that design, the character looks like a "q" ligated with a squiggle resembling a numeral "3", with the latter being at nearly full size. But, in all the examples that I have seen of this character in printed works, the squiggle "3" is smaller and wholly below the baseline, attached to the descender of the "q". I have attached two examples of this character, as printed in works from 1574 and from 1850.

Is it possible to have an alternate form for this character which more resembles the forms seen in those works?