David Possin wrote:
> But, if something it silently ignored, then somebody has discovered
> something that nobody wants to touch. I have observed this sevaral
> times now, the latest incident was in the Chromatic Font Research
> thread, with 2 cases:
> Aztec glyphs: [...] Silence.
Funny. I interpreted that silence the opposite way: very positively. I
didn't expect any immediate action, and the absence of denials made me feel
the information I passed was not totally pointless.
Anyway, even if the silence actually meant "Who cares?", it doesn't bother
me, because I think this is NOT an issue for Unicode.
"Unicode encodes character, not glyphs!" Whether the glyphs representing
those characters are colored or not, the only problem for Unicode would be
having four-color printing for a future edition of the Unicode Standard...
The problem (if there is one!) is only for font technology.
> Ethiopian writing: [...] "The capability to the same electronically
> would be well received. /Daniel."
Same for this one: Unicode's task was to provide a code point for the
Ethiopic full stop, and they did. Whether the corresponding glyph is colored
or not is problem for fonts and word processors.
However, there has been one case when Unicode's silence disturbed me, and
this was when I (et al.) raised a real encoding problem, although certainly
a minor one. It had to do with encoding "repha" out of context ("repha" is
one of the contextual glyphs of letter RA in some Indic scripts).
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Fri Jul 05 2002 - 14:08:37 EDT