At 10:58 PM 1/24/02 +0000, David Hopwood wrote:
>One possibility is to make VS1 specify what is now the reference glyph,
>and VS2 specify the alternate glyph. Unmarked would mean either.
Boy, great minds do think alike. I proposed that in a paper to the UTC
last year. ;-)
You realize that this issue is not limited to variation selectors?
Read the section on greek phi in http://www.unicode.org/unicode/reports/tr28
>The other possibility is to say that to be strictly Unicode-conformant,
>fonts should always use the reference glyph for unmarked characters
>(ignoring differences only of style). I think this is actually a better
>solution in practice; it avoids having to add selectors that would
>usually be redundant, and that would interfere with normalisation.
>It's also consistent with the Mongolian variant selectors, where
>unmarked should mean the "first form".
Boy, great minds to think alike. Mark Davis just proposed that in
a paper to the UTC this week.
Unfortunately. this is not a model that's always usable. Please
read the section on phi for background.
By adding a variation, we cannot restrict the glyph range for the
unmarked character - Mongolian being an exception since the unmarked
character's glyph range has been *explicitly* restricted from the
outset to the standard positional forms.
For VS1, the situation is different in that the glyph range of the
*unmarked* character *also* includes the glyph identified by VS1.
A./
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Sat Jan 26 2002 - 00:41:56 EST