At 17:20 -0700 2002-07-10, John Hudson wrote:
>The inclusion of variant selectors in Unicode uncomfortably blurs
>the line between character processing and glyph processing. The only
>excuse I can think of for including glyph substitution triggers in
>plain text is if there are normative stylistic substitutions to be
>identified by an author as a regular aspect of the writing of a
>given script, i.e. Ken's Position A. If you are not going to specify
>what the variant is, what point is there to including the glyph
>subsitution trigger in plain text, since you have no idea what the
>outcome is going to be in any given font?
Right but what happens in Mongolian is intended to happen in all
fonts. The glyph selection is obligatory but not algorithmically
predictable, hence the selector.
-- Michael Everson *** Everson Typography *** http://www.evertype.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Thu Jul 11 2002 - 04:42:48 EDT