From: Andrew West (andrewcwest@gmail.com)
Date: Wed Mar 29 2006 - 07:42:34 CST
On 28/03/06, David Starner <prosfilaes@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> CJK ideograph variation selectors are more important. It has been
> established to my satisfaction that no one agrees what is a semantic
> significance in CJK ideographs, and that there are people who want to
> distinguish ideographs that aren't distinguished in Unicode. A higher
> level protocol is very clumsy on a letter by letter basis, and the
> fact that Unicode doesn't support distinctions that are percieved as
> necessary has been used to make political hay. Variation selectors
> provide an easy way to support those people.
>
I remain unconvinced, and wait with interest to see exactly what
ideographic variants will be registered. I do wonder how much demand
there really will be for this mechanism given that font support will
be a long time catching up with registered ideographic variants
(probably font support will be much patchier than if the characters
were encoded directly -- just look at the font support for maths
standardized variants).
Andrew
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Mar 29 2006 - 07:45:08 CST