Wow Dan, that's very nice.
I'm curious, is it the same hyphen or did you make a v-shifted one for use with all-caps?
Well, I did not do the typesetting or the design/layout of the book. I just worked on the typefaces for it!
There is just one double-hyphen in the font. But those are small caps in the image, though… not caps. Small caps are often used for the transcription of inscriptions, etc.
I am sure that the small caps look fine next to the single or double-hyphen's vertical positions. But, the typesetter/typographer/designer/etc. is always free to shift things around in InDesign, of course.
Folks, the DOUBLE OBLIQUE HYPHEN is encoded at U+2E17. That's the one to use when you want, erm, a double oblique hyphen.
It was encoded separately from HYPHEN-MINUS (etc) because both were used in Copticist grammar books in German and in English.
[ Following ]
Hey Dan, what OT feature do you use to call this double oblique hyphen?
I didn't use any feature in this font. I just gave it the proper unicode value, and that was it. But, if I were to use an OT feature in the future, I would consider the historical alternate feature, and/or a stylistic set. Actually, a historical alternate is probably not the most proper, "clean" way of doing it, since it is its own character…
Just the other day, I was looking at a specimen of an English-language script face... which used double hyphens instead of single ones. So it apparently is a popular stylistic variant of the hyphen.
Right. But a stylistic set replaces one variant of a character with another … it replaces one glyph with another glyph. The hyphen and the double hyphen are two separate characters. At least according to Unicode.
When you use a stylistic set to replace a with a.alt01, you are replacing one version of a character with another. This is what stylistic sets are for. I don't think that stylistic sets were intended as a means of character replacement … just a means of glyph replacement.
English-language script face... which used double hyphens instead of single ones. So it apparently is a popular stylistic variant of the hyphen.
I think that it need to differentiate between the (straight) script-style of double hyphen (which is linked to cursive school scripts) and the (oblique) blackletter-style double hyphen (which Unicode deemed worthy of a specific codepoint).
According to Unicode, an ‘st’ ligature is a separate character (U+FB06) – so much for that.
True, but many ligatures are encoded because of backwards-compability issues, as far as I know. Actually, encoding ligatures is against Unicode's own philosophy. I don't think that new ligatures are being added … and ligature-like behaviors in many other scripts are not encoded.
Typographically, an st-liagture surely appears more often, and over a broader time range, than a double hyphen.
The fi and fl are also encoded but Adobe recommends using f_i f_l in substitutions so it will come back to a reader as the two letters. Can I put the unicode value of "fi" on the "f_i" glyph?