At 01:38 PM 29-11-99 -0800, Erik van der Poel wrote:
>Well, the semantics of the character entities are clear. If Mozilla
>detects fonts on the system that include the various math glyphs and
>glyph parts, then it will map the document's characters and character
>entities to font glyphs, not necessarily one-to-one. Mozilla needs to be
>careful not to let any of the PUA codes "escape" out of the app, e.g.
>cut/copy/paste, which will probably be done in terms of MathML "source",
>including character entities, markup and all.
How will Mozilla detect these fonts? If it detects by PUA codepoints in the
CMAP table you are going to run into the problem of detecting fonts in
which these PUA codepoints have been assigned to completely different
characters. By definition, the PUA -- and also the corporate use area --
are not fixed encodings, and custom font developers may already be using
the STIX PUA codepoints for completely different characters.
We're one of the companies currently reviewing the Scientific and Technical
Information Publishers group's font requirements for the STIX project, and
I'm beginning to wonder if someone isn't putting the cart before the horse.
I can only see one way in which all this is going to work seamlessly: the
characters specified by STIPUB need to be assigned standard Unicode values
before the STIX fonts are developed and before anyone tries to implement
MathML font support. Even if the PUA encoding approach can be made to work
without major font problems, someone will have to do the work all over
again when the characters are properly encoded.
John Hudson
Tiro Typeworks
Vancouver, BC
www.tiro.com
tiro@tiro.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:56 EDT