From: Doug Ewell (dewell@adelphia.net)
Date: Thu Jun 02 2005 - 10:04:11 CDT
Hans Aberg <haberg at math dot su dot se> wrote:
> If one so wants, one can add all the glyphs one wants, adding a
> property field saying that it is a rendering character. These will
> not then disturb the other characters, which are semantic in nature.
> One reason for doing it, is that if one has a Unicode font, then
> those glyphs become available. It seems me that is just a question of
> how to make these glyphs accessible.
Glyphs in a font do not have to be associated 1-to-1 with Unicode code
points. Indeed, they must not, if they are able to handle certain
context-dependent scripts.
There is no need to encode additional precomposed Latin ligatures, and
they will not be encoded. I once thought this would be a good idea. I
have since realized that it would not, not because I have been
"re-educated" in some sort of doctrinal way, but because I have a better
understanding of the technical principles involved. (Besides which, it
is now considered legitimate to use ZWJ and ZWNJ to explicitly request
or inhibit ligation, so there is now a Unicode solution to the problem.)
You can bet that the keepers of the Unicode Standard will not
"re-invent" it by renouncing the core technical principles that have
guided them for 14 years. This kind of "thinking outside the box" is
highly prized in marketing and industry invention, but it is a death
blow for an interoperable standard.
-- Doug Ewell Fullerton, California http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jun 02 2005 - 10:06:30 CDT