From: Thomas Lotze (email@example.com)
Date: Sat Nov 02 2002 - 17:43:40 EST
On Sat, 02 Nov 2002 11:19:41 -0700
John Hudson <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> If you use PUA
> codepoints for glyph variants in text, you immediately lose all the
> benefits of a clean character/glyph distinction:
I understand that perfectly well, and now that I've learnt about ZWJ I
don't see any reason anymore to represent a ligature in a document by a
(PUA or deprecated standard) UV instead of its constituents, connected
by ZWJs. OTOH, that's a matter of document coding style, not one of font
encoding. I don't see any harm in assigning standard UVs to ligatures
other than that users who don't understand the difference between font
encoding and text encoding will be encouraged to use them in documents.
However, the statement that Unicode is meant as a character encoding
instead of as a glyph encoding is clear enough for me.
> If you are interested in learning more about font layout features for
> glyph variants, and how a smart font format like OpenType works with
> the Unicode Standard, you might find this article at the Microsoft
> Typography website useful:
I'll take a look at it.
Thank you for your detailed and helpful response.
-- Thomas Lotze email@example.com http://www.thomas-lotze.de/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 18:23:04 EST