From: Peter Constable (petercon@microsoft.com)
Date: Thu Jun 30 2005 - 11:57:49 CDT
> From: hebrew-bounce@unicode.org [mailto:hebrew-bounce@unicode.org] On
Behalf
> Of Michael Everson
> >While I supported the invisible letter proposal, what I really
favoured
> >was an ellipsis base letter -- that is, a character that functions
like
> >a surrogate base when an actual base is not present, and that can
take
> >alternate visual realizations, such as a blank, a line or an x-height
> >asterisk.
>
> I don't quite understand what you mean by the latter is
I mean a character with a general category Lo and other character
properties typical of a letter, though with neutral directionality. The
representative glyph would have advance but no ink; valid font
implementations could have ink -- e.g. a hyphen or asterisk -- and could
offer alternate glyphs (using font features). Because glyphs *could*
have ink, I would not call this "invisible letter"; something like
"ellipsis letter" would be more appropriate.
Peter Constable
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jun 30 2005 - 11:58:45 CDT