Juuitchan wrote:
> Should there not be a "UniGlyph" encoding, for use by font
> designers, etc., which would encode these glyph variants?
I don't know if I would call it an "encoding" but, yes, there should be such
a thing, IMHO.
But it only makes sense for a minimalist rendering of Unicode, and with a
well-defined typographic style. A "Uniglyph" could be the basis for, e.g.,
implementing Unicode on very low resource platforms.
But such a thing could be useless (and perhaps dangerous) for applications
needing more sophisticated rendering and greater typographic freedom. A
"UniGlyph" thing would probably duplicate the functionality of existing
smart fonts, without delivering any real advantage.
As you say, however, such a minimalist approach could serve as a checklist
for all other systems: if a feature is *even* in "Uniglyph", you must have
it too.
I see a second use for such a thing: to act as a bridge between abstract
characters and glyphs, in order to allow a more visual editing for complex
scripts. But, in this case, also smart fonts should be redesigned to work on
this "UniGlyph", rather than on pure Unicode: quite an unlikely change to
expect in 2002.
_ Marco
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Thu Mar 07 2002 - 08:58:41 EST