Re: A last missing link for interoperable representation

On 2019-01-10 11:27 PM, wjgo_10009_at_btinternet.com wrote:
> Yesterday I wrote as follows.
>
>> I suggest that a solution to the problem would be to encode a
>> COMBINING ITALICIZER character, such that it only applies to the
>> character that it immediately follows. So, for example, to make the
>> word apricot become displayed in italics one would use seven
>> COMBINING ITALICIZER characters, one after each letter of the word
>> apricot.
>
> I have now made a test font. I used a Private Use Area code point and
> a visible glyph for this test. It works well.
>
> https://forum.high-logic.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=7831
>
> Would it be a good idea to encode such a character into Unicode? The
> first step would be to persuade the "powers that be" that italics are
> needed.  That seems presently unlikely.  There's an entrenched mindset
> which seems to derive from the fact that pre-existing character sets
> were based on mechanical typewriting technology and were limited by
> the maximum number of glyphs in primitive computer fonts.

The first step would be to persuade the "powers that be" that italics
are needed.  That seems presently unlikely.  There's an entrenched
mindset which seems to derive from the fact that pre-existing character
sets were based on mechanical typewriting technology and were further
limited by the maximum number of glyphs in primitive computer fonts.

The second step would be to persuade Unicode to encode a new character
rather than simply using an existing variation selector character to do
the job.
Received on Thu Jan 10 2019 - 17:44:25 CST