At 15:19 -0700 8/24/1999, John Cowan wrote:
>Rick McGowan scripsit:
>> Gosh, I don't approve. And I've been using Unix systems for many years.
>> The most flexible kind of implementation would prefer decomposed
>> In any case, enlightened systems would accept anything and massage as
>> to fit the particular application instead of forcing (or "suggesting") the
>> user to run everything through the meat grinder first...
>The idea here is to create documents in pre-normalized form, rather
>than requiring *every* application to do its own normalization.
>I disagree with Form KC here (I think Form C is the Right Thing),
>but I agree with the goal of early uniform normalization.
>See http://www.w3.org/TR/WD-charmod#Normalization .
>John Cowan email@example.com
> I am a member of a civilization. --David Brin
As Rick was saying elsewhere in that message, there is a lot of confusion
about the various forms a text can take during its life. We have to be able
to tell the difference between internal data structures inside running
programs, storage formats, publishing formats, input, rendering,...
I believe that the sense of the meeting has been that properly decomposed
characters are easiest to analyze and transform, and composed **glyphs**
give the best results for rendering, when available. I don't see anything
in those two ideas that requires coding of precomposed characters in
internal data structures or storage. If this is being proposed for
publishing, I think it will help in some cases while we all wait for more
capable software written by people who believe in the difference between
characters and glyphs.
-- Edward Cherlin firstname.lastname@example.org "It isn't what you don't know that hurts you, it's what you know that ain't so."--Mark Twain, or else some other prominent 19th century humorist and wit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:51 EDT