At 12:43 PM 1/27/02 -0800, Mark Davis \(jtcsv\) wrote:
>It sounds like what you are saying, in concrete terms, is that Font #6
>at the bottom of:
>
>http://www.macchiato.com/utc/variation_selection/variation_selection_f
>ollowup.htm
>
>is conformant. If that is so, then we would have to have an additional
>VS to select the "closed" form of the glyph. In that case, one could
>only depend on a visual distinction based upon the description if the
>font supported both of the VS sequences. I can see your point.
In your posting you wrote:
"Number 6 is the decisive one.
If we say that it is conformant, then we are required to have another VS
sequence (if, of course, we need to distinguish a determinant "closed" form).
If we say that it is not, then we are not required to have another VS to
distinguish the "closed" form.
"
I am saying #6 is definitely conformant (but it does not serve well the
community that asked for the open form at a separate location ;-)
Adding an explicit VS2 (or whatever VS) mechanism to ask for the distinct
form of the plain character code, gives everyone more choices:
If you are a user that needs the distinction, then you would have two choices:
a) get a font that makes the distinction, and enforce its presence
b) try asking for the distinction using VS2 (or whichever VS)
The latter allows you to make distinctions that can always be recovered
from your source data with fidelity, even if the 'try asking' didn't pan out.
If you are a font vendor wanting to support the distinction, then you would
have two choices:
a) have your font always make the distinction (and VS2 gets ignored silently)
b) don't make the distinction, unless asked to do so explicitly
The latter allows you to serve users not needing the distinction w/o
compromising the typographical aesthetics of your font in *their* context.
That directly translates into market choices.
A./
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Mon Jan 28 2002 - 03:20:20 EST