WO> U+F3A2 PLEASE LIGATE THE NEXT TWO CHARACTERS
WO> U+F3A3 PLEASE LIGATE THE NEXT THREE CHARACTERS
WO> U+F3A4 PLEASE LIGATE THE NEXT FOUR CHARACTERS
While I don't think this discussion of various PUA allocations should
continue very further, it's probably a lot better to introduce the
already-discussed ZERO WIDTH LIGATOR in such a form that X ZWL Y
produces the XY ligature, X ZWL Y ZWL Z the XYZ ligature and so on. It
saves you a lot of hassle with longer ligatures.
WO> U+F3A8 PLEASE SWASH THE NEXT PRINTABLE ITEM
WO> U+F3A9 PLEASE ALTERNATIVE SWASH THE NEXT PRINTABLE ITEM
Does this belong in a character-based encoding system at all? This is
better solved by markup. If you go on defining your own file formats
already, do include some sensible markup system there, and you don't
have to clutter the PUA and restrict their use. What if you've got
more than 2 swash forms, BTW?
WO> U+F3C0 PLAIN - ITALIC:=false; BOLD:=false;
WO> U+F3FF 192 POINT
Again, markup is the better solution. And, to be honest, it's a bit of
a waste of space on the mailing list, don't you think?
WO> I hope that these Courtyard Codes will be of interest to end users.
I don't really think so. They don't offer very much that well-known
typesetting systems don't implement already in their own fashion.
Stay the patient course / Of little worth is your ire / The network is down
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Fri May 24 2002 - 08:32:12 EDT