Talk:Medieval Unicode Font Initiative

Typography C‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Typography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Typography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TypographyWikipedia:WikiProject TypographyTemplate:WikiProject TypographyTypography
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Template:Mufi

There is a template that enables the use of MUFI fonts on wikipedia. Note that it should be used sparingly because these fonts are not widespread at all and because that template is overwritten if one specifies one's browser to use a specific default font. Anyway, here it is: Template:Mufi. ― j. 'mach' wust | ✑ 23:23, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since I’ve overlooked this one, I created Template:MUFI which does the same thing. They‘ve now been merged using the uppercase name. — Christoph Päper 11:40, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Entities

What is the "entity" column? They look like they're meant to be HTML character entities, but AIUI the list of character entities is specified in the HTML DTD and isn't defined in the charset. What gives? — Gwalla | Talk 20:56, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They’re more generic SGML / XML entity names defined by MUFI to be used in TEI or some such. ~~I’m not sure they actually provide a DTD.~~The associated Menota project has a DTD. — Christoph Päper 11:52, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LeedsUni

Can somebody please explain/clarify this statement: "LeedsUni supports all of MUFI 2.0." The context implies that "LeedsUni" is some kind of font; but the link just leads to Leeds University. GrindtXX (talk) 10:25, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is a font indeed, see the MUFI Font Page and the author’s homepage (at Leeds University). It doesn’t seem to have a Wikipedia article yet. — Christoph Päper 16:29, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. In that case, though, the Leeds University link is quite inappropriate, so I'm redlinking it. GrindtXX (talk) 21:30, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

tri-dagger

I brought this up at Talk:Dagger_(typography)#Triple_dagger but realized the F1D2 listed at http://skaldic.abdn.ac.uk/m.php?p=muficharinfo&i=5144 is related to here.

Are we able to generate this character on Wikipedia? I am able to view it just fine on PDFs but when I copy them and paste them here they display differently.

The one listed above with the rounded edges appears on page 2 of http://folk.uib.no/hnooh/mufi/proposals/n4704-medieval-punct.pdf as you can see in this line:

⹙ 2E59 TRIPLE DAGGER

also...

⊖ ⁄ triple dagger (from Medieval)

Page 7 of http://folk.uib.no/hnooh/mufi/pipeline/proposals/MUFIEingabeSSRQ-2011.pdf depicts the above line which shows a simpler line-based (not thick rounded edges) version. ScratchMarshall (talk) 20:20, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The character is still in the Unicode pipeline, see [1]. It is therefore not yet safe to use on Wikipedia. BTW, the pipeline puts it on a different encoding slot than the one you have mentioned. --mach 🙈🙉🙊 17:17, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This page uses {{MUFI}} to trigger fonts that support MUFI PUA codes like  U+F1D2 Triple Dagger Sign. They should also support standard code points like previous preliminary Unicode Next code ⹙ U+2E59 or current Unicode 10 beta code point ⺴ U+2EB4 for Triple Dagger, but probably do not yet. (Unicode 10 only entered beta stage yesterday.) — Christoph Päper 11:12, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It appears the triple dagger has been newly introduced with v. 4.0 of MUFI, but there are not yet any fonts that support it. That is why not even {{MUFI|}} cannot produce the desired result. --mach 🙈🙉🙊 12:31, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Right! I erroneously thought it was older. The usual fonts have not been updated yet in fact. — Christoph Päper 16:15, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate Entry U+F159

I'm not clear on the validity / protocol / usefulness of having duplicate entries. And, since there is only one (U+F159 for both LATIN ABBREVIATION SIGN SMALL DE and LATIN SMALL LETTER D ROTUNDA WITH BAR), I'm thinking it might be an error.

The Skaldic database (my name for https://skaldic.abdn.ac.uk/m.php?p=muficharinfo&i=4777 - not sure the official name of that database) lists this as LATIN ABBREVIATION SIGN SMALL DE with the note: "Used for Denar, Denier and Pfennig, and should therefore be distinguished from the italic form of 00F0 LATIN SMALL LETTER ETH. It should, however, be unified with F159 LATIN ABBREVIATION SIGN SMALL DE (p. 106 above). The previous code point, F2E5, should be retained and not used for any new character. Also defined as LATIN SMALL LETTER D ROTUNDA WITH BAR (&drotbar;)."

ClintGoss (talk) 15:16, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]