My position is that I agree with you that there's no need to Latinize Armenian, but I disagree with the idea that Cyrillic letterforms should go back to what existed before Peter the Great.Hrant H. Papazian said:BTW, just like cursiveness, Latinization has its place. Just not as a default.
I almost agree.Ben Blom said:
Let’s keep things simple, like this: italic = slanted = oblique (and it doesn’t matter whether italics have a shape more related to fluid writing than to mechanical composition, or not—like it doesn’t matter for uprights).
Obviously, if anything actually happened, then it is possible for it to have happened.Dan Reynolds said:Thanks to Jan Middendorp, I know that there were Dutch type designers who DID complain about the German standard baseline, although not as much as Van Krimpen complained about Monotype’s 18-unit system (is it possible for anyone to complain about anything as much as he went on about that?).
After I posted that, I thought of Æ and Œ. Of course, they, like W, if considered as a ligature for V V, or the Dutch Ĳ, all do retain the full capital form of the joined letters.Nick Shinn said:What about W?
Christian Thalmann said:I disagree with your design proposals, though. Since ß is a monolithic glyph rather than a ligature in German, the same must go for its capital. Barred S or trainwreck-SS sound alien and ungainly.