From: Andrew West (andrewcwest@gmail.com)
Date: Wed Mar 21 2007 - 04:49:41 CST
On 21/03/07, Eric Muller <emuller@adobe.com> wrote:
>
> In fact, I would guess that if we had had the variation selectors
> mechanism in place from the start, this mechanism would have been used
> and the compatibility ideographs would not have been encoded.
>
That's an interesting point.
Take for example the compatability ideographs U+F914, U+F95C and
U+F9BF, which are all canonically equivalent to U+6A02 and which all
have exactly the same glyph shape. Would it have been acceptable to
represent them using variation selectors as 6A02-VS1, 6A02-VS2 and
6A02-VS3 ? I ask this because the way variation selectors are
currently defined seems to me to imply that each variation sequence
for a given base character represents a particular, unique glyph, but
in this example the three variation sequences would all define exactly
the same glyph shape.
Thinking forward to Tangut, there are quite a few characters in the
Mojikyo Tangut character set (which reflects Li Fanwen's 1997 Tangut
dictionary) that have exactly the same glyph shape as another
character in the same character set (but are duplicated because they
have different readings). It would not be acceptable to encode
duplicate Tangut characters, but it would be desirable to maintain
roundtripping to the widely-used (amongst Tangutologists) Mojikyo
character set. One way to do this would be to define a "Tangut
Compatibility Ideographs" block, but another way would be to use
variation sequences. However, I wonder whether it would be acceptable
to use variation selectors for this purpose, as a particular variation
sequence would not define the glyph shape of a character but its
particular semantics.
Andrew
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Mar 21 2007 - 04:54:34 CST