Re: Custom fonts (was: Tolkien wanta-be)

From: Chris Jacobs (
Date: Tue Mar 18 2003 - 06:25:17 EST

  • Next message: William Overington: "Re: List of ligatures for languages of the Indian subcontinent."

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Doug Ewell" <>
    To: "Unicode Mailing List" <>
    Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 4:46 PM
    Subject: Re: Custom fonts (was: Tolkien wanta-be)

    > Chris Jacobs <c dot t dot m dot jacobs at hccnet dot nl> wrote:
    > >>> Then on my system U+E000 in plaintext should indeed display an apple
    > >>> symbol and U+E100 a banana symbol.
    > >>> But if there are more fonts with an apple symbol U+E000 does not
    > >>> specify the font to use.
    > >>
    > >> This isn't conformant and won't work.
    > >
    > > Which rule in The Unicode Standard Version 3.0 exactly is this not
    > > conformant with?
    > I think Conformance Requirement C10, "Modification," applies to this
    > case.

    No, it does not apply

    > C10 states:
    > "A process shall make no change in a valid coded character
    > representation other than the possible replacement of character
    > sequences by their canonical-equivalent sequences, if that process
    > purports not to modify the interpretation of that coded character
    > representation."
    > If you are claiming to follow a PUA interpretation in which U+E000 is an
    > apple and U+E100 is a banana, then interpreting U+E100 as an apple is an
    > unadvertised modification -- unless you contend that APPLE and BANANA
    > are canonical equivalents!

    If I interpret a B font declaration on a webpage as a private agreement
    that for data in that font on that webpage a PUA will be used were U+E000 is
    a banana that does not imply that I claim anything about which PUA I use for
    other purposes.

    If I receive U+E000 banana from such a webpage and convert it to U+E100
    banana because the part of my system where it goes to uses a different PUA
    then that is not an unadvertised modification, it is a conversion between
    different extensions of the Unicode Standard.
    And C10 does not apply to conversion between standards.If it did then
    conversion from Unicode to JIS would be forbidden too.

    And displaying that U+E100 banana as a banana then is also not an
    unadvertised modification.

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Mar 18 2003 - 06:05:19 EST