From: Jonathan Coxhead (jonathan@doves.demon.co.uk)
Date: Wed Sep 22 2004 - 16:42:59 CDT
Kenneth Whistler wrote:
> Antoine asked:
>
>
>>On Tuesday, September 21st, 2004 18:50 Kenneth Whistler va escriure:
>>
>>>With this change in place, it seems to me that the case is
>>>quite clear *for* separate encoding of any circled Arabic
>>>letter used as a symbol. If the sequence <062D, 20DD> were
>>>used, instead, it would cursively join inappropriately with
>>>neighboring Arabic characters, unless surrounded by ZWNJ as
>>>well.
>>
>>Then could/should we use the sequence <200C, 062D, 20DD, 200C>?
>
>
> You *could* use that sequence, and if your rendering implementation
> were sophisticated enough, it *might* render what you were
> expecting.
So here's my question ...
If I did write the sequence <200C, 062D, 20DD, 200C>, would *should* I expect?
It seems to me that---barring bugs---this ought to produce the symbol
expected, in a completely standard-conforming way, and with no extra encoding
needed.
If I write <200C, 062D, 20DD, 200C>, and I don't see this Saudi copyright
sign, shouldn't I be able to complain to someone for non-compliance? (Of course,
I might not like its baseline, or size, or stroke-width, but I'm sure I could
get over it.)
Exactly what "wiggle-room" exists, in the current state of play?
> My recommendation, however, is just to pursue encoding of this
> as a symbol character and be done with it. Compared to the
> similar pile of stuff at 2460..24FF and 3200..32FF this one
> additional circled letter symbol would be a drop in the ocean.
> Or.... perhaps in this case, a grain of sand in the desert.
--
/| Jonathan Coxhead
o o o (_|/
/| Sunnyvale CA USA
(_/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 22 2004 - 16:52:28 CDT