=?UTF-8?Q?Re:_Draft_Proposal_to_add_Variation_Sequences_for_Latin_and=D=A_Cyrillic_=9letters_(was_Re:_long_s_(was:_Draft_Proposal_to_add_Variation=D=A_Sequences_for_=9Latin_and_Cyrillic_letters))?=

From: verdy_p (verdy_p@wanadoo.fr)
Date: Wed Aug 04 2010 - 10:46:49 CDT

  • Next message: John W Kennedy: "Re: Draft Proposal to add Variation Sequences for Latin and Cyrillic letters"

    In my opinion, adding the s+VS1 variation sequence is completely unneeded. If you really want a "long s", use the code
    assigned to the long s. fonts or renderers should still provide a reasonnable fallback to "s" if the glyph is missing.

    This means that all existing ligatures will long s will continue to be encoded as well with "long s" and ZWJ. the
    "x+VS1" proposal is an attempt to disunify the "long s", when it is NOT needed at all.

    The only convenient variation sequence would be to add "S+VS1" for the capital (because long s has no capital) only to
    preserve the long s semantic when converting it to uppercase or titlecase, in which case the mapping of "S+VS1" to
    lowercase will give again the standard "long s".

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Aug 04 2010 - 10:51:50 CDT