From: jage
To: edwin_hart
Cc: jage
Subject: Char. Glyph Model Comments
Date: Monday, November 04, 1996 15:11


                                   Monday, November 4, 1996
Ed,
     Here are a few brief comments on the AUgust 19 version of the
'Operational Model for Characters and Glyphs'.
     Just before section 5 it seems to suggest that combining characters
have no glyph; isn't it more accurate to say the position of the glyph
of a combining character depends on what precedes it?
     In the last paragraph of section 5.1, isn't the third necessity
a bridge between the other two?
     Page 7 refers to the Devanagari ra's half or eyelash glyph but
does not show it in figure 5.  is this because selecting this glyph
would be so difficult it may require a separately encoded character?
     On page 8 a "j" is missing from "justify" and "justification"
and on page 11 from "Romaji"--could this be my printer?
     In B.1, can't some characters, e.g., space, have both "data" and
"control" functions?  In the next paragraph, characters are enumerated
by assigning a unique name to each--except Chinese, Japanese and Korean
ideography, I think.
     In C.3, third paragraph, "Character-to-glyph mapping tables are
not defined by ISO standards"  why not since they're the necessary
bridge between characters and glyphs?  It seems to me that without
some agreement on this the two important of text processing have not
been brought together.  This is not to say it will be easy to do so,
it might involve different levels of typographic excellence, e.g.,
an internet note need not be beautiful, but some agreement on
communication seems essential.
     Sorry these are so late,
          Jim Agenbroad ( jage@LOC.gov )
     The above are purely personal opinions, not necessarily the offiical
views of any government or any agency of any.