this sounds like "cartouches" should be left to styles in non-plain text,
if they are indeed "equivalent to Latin stylistic forms".
encoding styles is bad. stateful text encodings are very bad.
Markus Scherer IBM Cupertino, CA email@example.com
Markus Kuhn <Markus.Kuhn@cl.cam.ac.uk> on 99-10-28 04:41:00
To: "Unicode List" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: Ancient Egyptian Cartouches
Michael Everson wrote on 1999-10-28 11:02 UTC:
> Ar 15:46 -0700 1999-10-27, scríobh Timothy Partridge:
> >Ancient Egyptian poses several similar problems as I'm sure you're
> I proposed beginning and ending cartouches like (parentheses), not a
> overlay like the keycap symbol.
Ancient Egyptian cartouches seem equivanent to Latin stylistic forms
- bold printing
- crossing out
- italics printing
which can all conveniently be implemented by a font switch (even though
special rendering support for underlining and crossing out is common) or
Encoding cartouche start and end might allow conveniently to switch from
say the "Egyptian Normal 5.5 mm" font to the "Egyptian Cartouched 5.5
mm" font for the text between the two cartouche ends, which would allow
the convenient representation of emperor names without requiring any
modifications in applications (which is probably highly advisable for
very rarely used scripts such as hieroglyphs).
Other question about Egyptian: will Hieroglyphic and Demotic be unified?
I got the understanding that they are mostly glyph variants of
essentially the same alphabet, similar to the also very different
printed and handwritten Latin.
-- Markus G. Kuhn, Computer Laboratory, University of Cambridge, UK Email: mkuhn at acm.org, WWW: <http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:54 EDT