At 12:22 +0200 2002-06-25, Marco Cimarosti wrote:
>William Overington wrote:
>> Michael Everson raised a very interesting question, which
>> caused me to sit and think about it for quite a while.
>> >At 08:16 +0100 2002-06-24, William Overington wrote:
>> >>U+E7C2 HOLLY LEAF (GREEN) SURROUNDED BY FIVE BERRIES (RED)
>> >As a "character", will this differ from HOLLY LEAF SURROUNDED BY FIVE
>> >BERRIES in its semantics? If not, then you are using character coding
>> >for a higher level protocol again.
>> Well, after some thought as to whether it would differ in its
>> semantics or
>> whether it would not differ in its semantics, I realized that I had no
>> intention that HOLLY LEAF SURROUNDED BY FIVE BERRIES would be
>> defined as
>> well. I suggested U+E7C2 HOLLY LEAF (GREEN) SURROUNDED BY
>> FIVE BERRIES (RED) as a test item, [...]
>How is an imaginary test case preferable to the real cases which were
>already proposed? These were:
>1) Black Ethiopic paragraph separator (U+1368) decorated with little red
>dots (suggested by Peter Constable).
>2) Arabic letters with black stems and red dots (suggested by me).
>Both chromatic combinations are actually used (although not in current
>modern usage), and they are representative of the whole issue, because they
>map in two different ways to the usual monochrome display:
>- In the Ethiopic case (1), the red dots are just decorative, so they should
>be dropped in monochrome display.
>- In the Arabic case, just the color of the red dots is decorative, but the
>dots themselves are part of the letter, so they should be retained also in
>Moreover, Peter's and my examples, by using existing characters, do not
>require any "PUA agreement" -- or is it mandatory to use the PUA for just
-- Michael Everson *** Everson Typography *** http://www.evertype.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jun 25 2002 - 05:53:18 EDT