Are we need a gothic English keyboard layout?

[Eirik Byrkjeflot Anonsen]

Jeremy Huddleston Sequoia <jeremyhu at gmail.com> writes:

> On Aug 26, 2014, at 22:39, Eirik Byrkjeflot Anonsen <eirik at opera.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi-Angel <hiangel999 at gmail.com> writes:
>> 
>>> Officially it is called «Bold fraktur letters», position in Unicode
>>> U1D56C-U1D59F (𝕴𝖋 𝖞𝖔𝖚 𝖉𝖔𝖓'𝖙 𝖘𝖊𝖊 𝖙𝖍𝖊 𝖕𝖍𝖗𝖆𝖘𝖊 𝖎𝖓 𝖙𝖍𝖊 𝖇𝖗𝖆𝖈𝖊𝖘 𝖙𝖍𝖊𝖓 𝖞𝖔𝖚'𝖗𝖊
>>> 𝖘𝖈𝖗𝖊𝖜𝖊𝖉 — 𝖙𝖍𝖎𝖘 𝖑𝖊𝖙𝖙𝖊𝖗𝖘 𝖎𝖓 𝖙𝖍𝖊 𝖘𝖙𝖆𝖓𝖉𝖆𝖗𝖙 𝖘𝖎𝖓𝖈𝖊 2001 𝖞𝖊𝖆𝖗). Right now I
>>> made it up from one of an unused by me layouts of the
>>> «/usr/share/X11/xkb/symbols/» directory. But I think I could dig into
>>> it, and make a full keyboard layout if there is a chance that you're
>>> accept it.
>>> So, the question is: are you need this layout? Personally I think that
>>> it looks very beautiful, and since all over the internet using the
>>> Unicode, no would be a problems with a symbols encoding. I think we
>>> need it.
>> 
>> So what you want this for is to write english text (or possibly another
>> language that is usually written with roman letters), but you want the
>> styling of the characters to use the type face "fraktur"? Then really,
>> this is logically completely wrong. What you end up with is a sequence
>> of mathematical symbols that is pure nonsense rather than the english
>> sentence you thought you were writing.
>> 
>> The choice of "fraktur" rather than "times", "courier" or "arial" should
>> not change the representation of the text itself. Consider how painful
>> it would be if every search on google would only give you results where
>> the text was using the specific font you were searching with.
>
> FYI, while the general point is valid, your specific example using Google is off.  Google handles this, but bing doesn't.
>
> --Jeremy

Heh, true. I actually discovered that when I tested a korean input
method and google returned results for the sequence of letters that
would have been typed if I had been in qwerty mode instead.

eirik