> "ka-ka-ka-ka-ka-ka-ka-ka-ka-ka-ka-ka-ka-ka-ka-ka-ka-ka".
This is painfully true. I'd suggest that instead of using random examples
of each script and enclosing it into a rounded square, we
a) choose a _representative_ character from each script ("hi" for
hiragana, "han" for hangul; in current font: "character" [zi,ji,ja]
for Unihan, "ka" for katakana), and
b) design _icons_ for the more "functional" characters ("CJK
compatibility"; in current font: "reserved", "private use", etc.).
> 1) a version of the font that used latin abbreviations to make it easier
> for me to identify and distinguish scripts I couldn't read, as well as
> making technical distinctions such as "CJK compatibility", and
What is the status of the LastResort font? Are those examples (a
non-exhaustive list) in the 2.0 book normative or just informative? Does
a system displaying Unicode have to use the "standard" LastResort font to
be Unicode compliant? If it is not normative, the user should be
empowered to choose among the icon-ish LastResort, the Latin LastResort,
the Cyrillic LR, &c.
-- Kai-hsu Tai http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~kaihsu/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:35 EDT