Posted by Jukka K. Korpela on 06/01/07 08:29

Scripsit Ben C:

>> There's a lot of bogus information around, and such statements are
>> useful bogosity indicators. On that particular page, you can see
>> other bogosity indicators as well, such as "Extended ASCII", "90"
>> (using masculine ordinal indicator instead of degree sign - and they
>> claim to be "Type Professionals"!), "Circero" (for "Cicero"), etc.
>
> Those are quite inexcuscable typos.

No they aren’t. ”Extended ASCII” is a factual error. They got the facts
wrong, instead of just pressing the wrong key by accident. Using wrong
character instead of the degree sign is a character-level error – not an
accidental typing mistake. Any typographer should know better. Mistyping ”Cicero”
can be classified as an accidental typo, and it is indeed inexcusable (i.e.,
not excusable) in a purported reference material when it appears _twice_.

Please read a reputable book on typography if you seriously doubt that I am
not right here. Surfing around bogus web pages and citing them takes you
nowhere.

>> - I stopped scanning when I saw a claim that the circumflex is used
>> in Italian.
>
> According to some more bogus websites it is.

So why do you keep citing bogosities? Besides, what you quote from an
unspecified source says that the circumflex is _not_ used in Italian; it
claims that it _was_. There’s a difference, especially if one pretends to
present _reference_ information on typography.

--
Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

[Back to original message]