-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Asmus Freytag wrote:
> At 06:29 AM 1/24/02 +0000, David Hopwood wrote:
> >Kenneth Whistler wrote:
> > > And StandardizedVariants.html has been updated again, with more
> > > of the missing glyphs provided.
> >
> >I can't see any difference between plain U+2278 (either in the draft
> >code chart or StandardizedVariants.html) and U+2278 with VS1.
> >Is plain U+2278 supposed to have an oblique stroke?
> >
> >Same for U+2279.
>
> The plain ones are supposed to have the oblique stroke in the
> *reference* glyphs. As with all mathematical glyph variations, *both*
> variations are acceptable in common, unmarked situations.
In that case how do I specify that the reference glyph is required?
I.e. there's an asymmetry here between the VS1 glyph, which can be
specified explicitly, and the reference glyph, which can't.
One possibility is to make VS1 specify what is now the reference glyph,
and VS2 specify the alternate glyph. Unmarked would mean either.
The other possibility is to say that to be strictly Unicode-conformant,
fonts should always use the reference glyph for unmarked characters
(ignoring differences only of style). I think this is actually a better
solution in practice; it avoids having to add selectors that would
usually be redundant, and that would interfere with normalisation.
It's also consistent with the Mongolian variant selectors, where
unmarked should mean the "first form".
[...]
> >The Mongolian descriptions say "second form", "third form", and
> >"fourth form". Unless these are already defined somewhere, I suggest
> >"variation one", "variation two", and "variation three" instead.
>
> This list is being published as Amd 1:ISO/IEC 10646-1:2000 (2002), so
> it's essentially frozen.
OK.
> >Is "variant" or "variation" the preferred term? If "variant" is preferred,
> >then why "VARIATION SELECTOR ONE", etc.? If not, why "StandardizedVariants"?
>
> While "VARIATION SELECTOR" is the formal name of the character (and therefore
> fixed), referring to the selected thing as a 'variation' sounds really
> odd, that's why the more common term 'variant' is used all over the place.
> Perhaps we ought to make them formally synonyms, somewhat like code point
> and code location.
Yes, we should.
> I think it's a subtle thing. Without context, *VARIANT SELECTOR could be
> understood as a VARIANT of a SELECTOR.
But there is always sufficient context for Unicode character names: the
Unicode standard :-) I realise that the VS character names can't be changed
now, though (because they have been accepted for ISO 10646).
- --
David Hopwood <david.hopwood@zetnet.co.uk>
Home page & PGP public key: http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hopwood/
RSA 2048-bit; fingerprint 71 8E A6 23 0E D3 4C E5 0F 69 8C D4 FA 66 15 01
Nothing in this message is intended to be legally binding. If I revoke a
public key but refuse to specify why, it is because the private key has been
seized under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act; see www.fipr.org/rip
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3i
Charset: noconv
iQEVAwUBPFCRGDkCAxeYt5gVAQHMHwf/bsgs7cbksude6LMvxXi665uM7ypwTuUx
GOHxF4g7ji3KbHhYIdfKHqjhVikMrg8TyJFmfI7v3hcgtASZF6fJkOf9Ai3nRDuP
ku+l8LN0nuBTp2t3evsWa0gmBWcN6k4LhydiyGez1ndPM6nwLx4yF5nmyjaYWm+E
LiNtDn6Tn+oMsMzs7MwxPC6AOq1ZveIOtgw47Tbh/wa0AAjfa+1XCAnf2OEfZvR9
O6jGLCpmqHByoqzrDhlkVwGaGU6vn6TtXBR0xDWtLUI77DINWwi/dmpBTNHE+7FF
UsyL0+fue1dKZLUgV/idBPdZDxRVq6cjw0nksBZgPKjqjRBc+GmhQw==
=4JRE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Fri Jan 25 2002 - 19:38:05 EST