- From: Alexander Savenkov <w3@hotbox.ru>
- Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 01:08:03 +0300
- To: www-font@w3.org, Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
Hello everyone, (quite a delayed response actually) 2002-09-25T10:48:06Z Martin Duerst wrote: > Dear font experts, I'm an expert by no means, but I took a couple of Russian books to see what's happening there. ...Snip... > Example: > ^ ^ ^ ^ > | / / / > | / / / > | / / / > a) b) c) d) > a) the original, upright, glyph with circumflex accent > b) italic/slanted glyph where the circumflex moves according > to the geometric transform > c) italic glyph where the circumflex moves, but not as much > d) itacic glyph where the accent is just placed straight over > the center of the base letter. > Expressed in these examples, my question is: For well-designed > fonts, is c) (rather than b) or d)) a good approximation? According to what I see the diacritics are italicized according to b) (at least in Russian), but it's poorly implemented across the browsers. Circumflex is not used in Russian, but combining stress signs are always italicized like in b). Alex. --- Alexander "Croll" Savenkov http://www.thecroll.com/ w3@hotbox.ru http://croll.da.ru/
Received on Sunday, 19 January 2003 17:14:19 UTC