On 19 Aug 2011, at 15:24, Shriramana Sharma wrote:
> On 08/19/2011 07:13 PM, Michael Everson wrote:
>> This is a very good question.
>
> It seems Michael speaks tongue-in-cheek.
Not at all. I think there should be a RTL PUA.
> I personally don't see the point in allocation RTL areas in the PUA. It is after all the *P*UA. Do you expect rendering engines to support the PUA?
I can get certain CSUR scripts to behave as expected using PUA code positions. Unless they are RTL.
> Yeah OK maybe simply base+diacritic stuff or even ligatures would be easy to do via simple substitution rules in tables, but how about glyph reordering?
No problem unless you are using Uniscribe.
> Indic scripts involving reordering and split-positioning vowel signs can't be handled by placing them in the PUA.
There are other ways of handling such clusters.
> In what way are RTL scripts different that proper rendering should be supported for them even though they are in the PUA?
They, um, go RTL.
> If you want proper rendering in terms of bidi formatting and glyph reordering etc you should make a proposal for official encoding. The PUA will not help.
It would help for exchange of private scripts that are RTL, or for software development of RTL scripts, etc.
> Ergo there is no scope for specifying directionality for PUA code-points.
Sure there is. It's just giving some otherwise-undefined code points a strong 'R' directionality for the benefit of those users who need to use that. After all, the rest of the PUA gives some otherwise-undefined code points a strong 'L' directionality.
Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
Received on Fri Aug 19 2011 - 09:39:06 CDT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Fri Aug 19 2011 - 09:39:06 CDT