Comment 40 for bug 650498

A very clear description, but it simply doesn't match the form they are
promoting. It conflates a z with an ezh - two completely different
shapes, and makes reference to features which simply aren't present. I'd
go as far as to say it's a explanation as fallacious as Tschichold's.

A long-s-ezh ligature would descend, is it does in the historic Fraktur
form, and would have a completely different junction at the top right,
again as in the Fraktur form.

To explain their preferred form as long-s-ezh requires as much
manipulation as Tschichold required to explain the Fraktur form as
long-s-short-s.

Where the text and exemplar diagram disagree, we must trust the diagram,
given the selection process that they went through to choose their
preferred form. And their exemplar is very clearly a long-s-short-s.

Dave