search

LettError / glyphNameFormatter

Generate list of glyphnames from unicode names.
BSD 3-Clause "New" or "Revised" License
75 stars 9 forks source link

Possible inconsistency in superior figures (?) #92

Closed mathieureguer closed 2 years ago

mathieureguer commented 4 years ago

Superior figures follow this pattern:

onesuperior (no dot) twosuperior threesuperior four.superior ( dot) five.superior …

I understand onesuperior, twosuperior, threesuperior belong to a different code range, but maybe they should adopt the same "." suffix structure as the other superiors? It would make things like auto generating OpenType features a little more seamless.

colinmford commented 2 years ago

I just came up against this as well. @LettError maybe you could shed some light on the inconsistency here?

For some reason I thought maybe it was because onesuperior, twosuperior, and threesuperior were in the AGL and the others are not, but I just checked, and all the figures, -superior and -inferior, are in the list (without the dot, of course)... so I guess it's not that.

I would be in favor of adding the dot to those 3 glyphs for consistency (and I would be happy to make a PR to that effect), but I wonder if there is an angle I'm not thinking of.

LettError commented 2 years ago

I'm in favor of the dotted variants.

colinmford commented 2 years ago

Thanks, @LettError !

mathieureguer commented 2 years ago

Oh, this is great! Thanks @LettError!