Aw: Re: Inverted asterism

[Asmus Freytag]

I'm a bit confused here.

Inspecting the page I don't see the use of "rotate()" and when I look at 
source text as well as cut&paste, I see  *⁎*  composed from two six 
pointed and one five pointed asterisk.

That seems a crude representation of what is in print, in that the print 
original seems to have three identical asterisks.

A./

On 3/30/2023 11:52 AM, Marius Spix via Unicode wrote:
> This is not font-specific. They use the rotate() css function. It seems that the typesetter also used three separate glyphs. That “reversed asterism” is 3 en wide and does not overlap like the reference glyph for the asterism.
>
>> Gesendet: Donnerstag, den 30.03.2023 um 20:10 Uhr
>> Von: "James Kass via Unicode"<unicode at corp.unicode.org>
>> An:unicode at corp.unicode.org
>> Betreff: Re: Inverted asterism
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2023-03-30 4:54 PM, David Starner via Unicode wrote:
>>> There doesn't seem to be an inverted asterism in Unicode. Is there a
>>> good reason there's not?
>>> https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:Monthly_scrap_book,_for_February.pdf/24
>>> shows the example I have at hand, from an 1832 English-language
>>> periodical from Scotland.
>>>
>> Looking at it in the browser, the two 'stacked asterisks' match.
>> Copy/pasting the line into a plain-text editor (which uses a different
>> font) shows one asterisk above and two below.
>>
>>        ⁂ The above short Hints were submitted to the ...
>>
>> Would this be considered a glyph variant, or a separate character? Are
>> the two forms ever used contrastively in the same source?
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://corp.unicode.org/pipermail/unicode/attachments/20230330/20ee57a0/attachment.htm>