Re: Apostrophes at

From: Andrew West (
Date: Fri Aug 24 2007 - 17:27:49 CDT

  • Next message: John Hudson: "Re: Apostrophes at"

    On 24/08/07, James Kass <> wrote:
    > The attached graphic shows a word in Mongolian from a page by Andrew
    > West in the application BabelPad with both default rendering and the
    > rendering option which displays text as single characters. Where's
    > the problem?

    Certainly, if you are editing a text in Mongolian or Phags-pa that
    uses variation selectors it is very useful to be able to switch to a
    mode that makes the VS characters visible.

    On the other hand, if you were reading a mathematical treatise that
    used maths VS sequences that were not supported in the font you had
    available, it may perhaps be preferable to have an invisible
    functionless VS than intrusive square boxes all over the place.

    So I would say that a font that does not support variation sequences
    should follow Mark's suggestion and map all VS characters to an
    invisible glyph, whereas a font (such as Code2000) that does support
    variation sequences should give VS characters a visible glyph, which
    can be available for use in "show hidden" mode, but which will be
    stripped out by the rendering system in normal use.

    But what a font should not do, in my opinion, is simply leave VS
    characters to be rendered with the .notdef glyph.


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Aug 24 2007 - 17:29:16 CDT