Re: Draft Proposal to add Variation Sequences for Latin and Cyrillic letters

From: David Starner (prosfilaes@gmail.com)
Date: Wed Aug 04 2010 - 17:17:44 CDT

  • Next message: verdy_p: "Re: A Standard fallback characters (was: Draft Proposal to add VariationÚ Sequences for Latin and Cyrillic letters)"

    On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 4:33 PM, Karl Pentzlin <karl-pentzlin@acssoft.de> wrote:
    > Am Dienstag, 3. August 2010 um 02:47 schrieb David Starner:
    >
    > DS> ... I don't see why
    > DS> unspecific forms should be encoded; if you want a nonspecific a, 0061
    > DS> is the character.
    >
    > This is because I take into account the "implicit" application of a
    > variation sequence on a base character by a higher-level protocol,
    > which must be overridable in some way.

    I don't see why it must be overridable. By not including a variation
    sequence, you've left it up to the system to pick a glyph. Whatever
    glyph it picks, you have no right to complain. There is no reason for
    the system to do anything with the unspecific form variation sequence. 

    -- 
Kie ekzistas vivo, ekzistas espero.

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Aug 04 2010 - 17:25:04 CDT