On 08/20/2018 03:12 PM, Mark Davis ☕️ via Unicode wrote:
> > ... some people who would call a PUA solution either batty
> > or crazy.
>
> I don't think it is either batty or crazy. People can certainly use
> the PUA to interchange text (assuming that they have downloaded fonts
> and keyboards or some other input method beforehand), and
> it
> can definitely serve as a proof of concept
> . Plain symbols — with no interactions between them (like changing
> shape with complex scripts), no combining/non-spacing marks, no case
> mappings, and so on — are the best possible case for PUA.
It is kind of a bummer, though, that you can't experiment (easily? or at
all?) in the PUA with scripts that have complex behavior, or even
not-so-complex behavior like accents & combining marks, or RTL direction
(here, also, am I speaking true? Is there a block of RTL PUA also? I
guess there's always RLO, but meh.) Still, maybe it doesn't really
matter much: your special-purpose font can treat any codepoint any way
it likes, right?
~mark
Received on Mon Aug 20 2018 - 19:04:50 CDT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Aug 20 2018 - 19:04:50 CDT