From: Marco Cimarosti (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Thu Jan 30 2003 - 13:20:20 EST
Keyur Shroff wrote:
> > However, I totally agree with Kent that this funny
> rendering is *not* a
> > requirement of the Unicode standard, as Keyur Shroff seems
> to suggest. It
> > is just an example of many "several methods [that] are
> available to deal
> > with" strange sequences.
> A sequence should not be treated as "strange" sequence if it has been
> written intentionally. It may have some contextual meaning.
I said "strange" in the sense of character sequences that are not part of
the ordinary spelling of any language. In fact, a thing like a matra
floating in the air or on a dotted circle is something that you'd only see
in a text (not necessarily *in* an Indian language) which talks about
spelling, character sets, and the like.
> Also, what is good or bad is also subjective. It may also
> vary from one script to another.
Yes, but what is mandatory and what is not in Unicode sciould not be too
much subjective, else we could not call it a "standard".
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jan 30 2003 - 14:18:05 EST