Bill Kurmey asked:
> Since the list seems to be a bit slow on substantive issues, may I ask a
> few questions for clarification please.
>
> Q1 on unification of abstract characters. If abstract character x is
> unified with abstract character y, and the use of abstract character x is
> thereby deprecated or discouraged, am I correct in assuming abstract
> character x would be unlikely to have a glyph representation associated
> with it in a type font designed for use with Unicode?
Hmm. This question is rather abstract. Do you have particular examples
in mind?
The Unicode Standard currently only formally deprecates 8 characters
(the two erroneously encoded Vietnamese tone marks 0340, 0341, and
the 6 bogus format controls at 206A..206F). It discourages the use
of a few more, mostly combined Tibetan vowel forms that have alternative
representations. The Vietnamese tone marks should be represented by
ordinary acute and grave accents (for which there are glyphs, obviously),
and the bogus format controls have no glyphs -- except for chart fonts.
The Han unification process is mostly a determination of which range
of *glyphs* should be considered the *same* abstract character -- not
a unification of "abstract character x ... with abstract character y".
So it isn't clear exactly what you are asking. Can you give a concrete
example to clarify the intent of your question?
--Ken
>
> If this is a false assumption, are both abstract characters represented by
> glyphs which are distinctly different?
>
> If this is a correct assumption, what alternatives are available for the
> glyph representation of abstract character x (the unified abstract
> character) in text discussing the differences and variations between the
> two abstract characters?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Dec 11 2001 - 13:15:49 EST