Re: Character identities

From: David Starner (
Date: Mon Oct 28 2002 - 08:09:26 EST

  • Next message: Dan Kogai: "Copyright on gif images via"

    On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 11:21:30AM +0100, Kent Karlsson wrote:
    > No, the claim was that diaresis and overscript e are the same,
    > so the reversed case Marc is talking about is not different at all.

    The claim is, that for certain fonts, it is appropriate to image the
    a-umlaut character as an a^e. That doesn't imply anything about the
    other way around, or else t' could legally be displayed as a t with
    caron above.

    > > A U+0308 (COMBINING DIAERESIS) should remain a U+0308,
    > > regardless that the corresponding glyph *looks* like U+0364
    > > SMALL LETTER E) in one font, and it looks like U+0304
    > > another font, and it looks like two five-pointed start
    > > side-by-side in a
    > > third font, and it looks like Mickey Mouse's ears in <Disney.ttf>...
    > These are all unacceptable variations in a *Unicode font (in
    > default mode)*. But you can have all kinds of silly variations
    > in *non*-Unicode fonts applied to Unicode text, including ciphers
    > or rebuses... (ok, there are degrees...)

    Basically, any decorative or handwriting font can't be a Unicode font.
    (The glyph for my German teachers umlaut was definitely a macron.) Seems
    pointless to tell a lot of the fontmakers out there that they shouldn't
    worry about Unicode, because Unicode's only for standard book fonts, but
    that's the only way I can read your last statement.

    David Starner -
    Great is the battle-god, great, and his kingdom--
    A field where a thousand corpses lie. 
      -- Stephen Crane, "War is Kind"

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Oct 28 2002 - 09:15:32 EST