From: Peter Kirk (peterkirk@qaya.org)
Date: Fri Nov 28 2003 - 06:41:56 EST
On 28/11/2003 01:57, Andrew C. West wrote:
> ...
>
>These are all specialised cases that are strictly necessary in order to
>represent the respective scripts. General text formatting such as underlining or
>arbitrary encirclement of characters (or cartouchement of ideographs which is
>common in traditional Chinese texts) is considered to be "rich text" and beyond
>the scope of Unicode. Whenever I read threads like this one (and they resurface
>with monotonous regularity) I do wonder whether the participants have ever read
>TUS Section 2.2 "Unicode Design Principles".
>
>Andrew
>
>
>
>
>
Andrew, I agree with Jill that there is no need to get ad hominem. You
will see that I anticipated your objection. I listed several cases where
a combining mark might need to be associated with a group of characters,
and suggested that some might be dealt with as "rich text". You have
confirmed what I wrote. Some of my cases have already been encoded in
Unicode, and in just the way I suggested; others are considered (by the
UTC, or just by you?) as "rich text". Like Jill, I see some possible
inconsistency. One point of this discussion is perhaps to determine if
we ought to try to make things more consistent.
-- Peter Kirk peter@qaya.org (personal) peterkirk@qaya.org (work) http://www.qaya.org/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 28 2003 - 07:20:32 EST