From: David Starner (email@example.com)
Date: Mon Oct 28 2002 - 08:09:26 EST
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
> > A U+0308 (COMBINING DIAERESIS) should remain a U+0308,
> > regardless that the corresponding glyph *looks* like U+0364
> > (COMBINING LATIN
> > SMALL LETTER E) in one font, and it looks like U+0304
> > (COMBINING MACRON) in
> > 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 - firstname.lastname@example.org 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