From: Mark E. Shoulson (mark@kli.org)
Date: Tue Aug 02 2005 - 17:55:38 CDT
John Hudson wrote:
> Gregg Reynolds wrote:
>
>> Maybe its the size of the problem I'm not understanding. To take
>> your example, let's suppose that RTL digits 0-9 are approved
>> tomorrow. They're no different than their LTR equivalents, except for
>> the typesetting semantics. That is, they share the same "underlying
>> Platonic character", if I've understood you: they mean the number
>> three. They just have different *typographic* semantics.
>
>
> There is no concept of 'typographic semantics' in Unicode. (I'll leave
> it to the philosophers to debate whether the Unicode notion of
> 'abstract character' is the same as your 'underlying Platonic
> character'.)
>
It was my intention, when I used the term "underlying Platonic
character" to mean something more or less the same as Unicode's
"abstract character," according to my understanding of the latter.
~mark
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Aug 02 2005 - 17:56:23 CDT