From: Jungshik Shin (email@example.com)
Date: Fri May 09 2003 - 06:18:52 EDT
Recently I found some fonts have visible glyphs for invisible characters
(that I _guess_ are supposed to have no visual effect) such as U+2062
(the glyph for U+2062 is dotted 'x' inside a dotted box). With these
kind of fonts present, a bit naive(??) approach of searching for glyphs
in all the fonts on the system would turn the 'invisible' to the visible.
For instance, the following MathML snippet was rendered with
a visible glyph (⁢ == U+2062) by Mozilla.
My questions are:
(1) Is a font to blame for having visible glyphs for U+2062 and
similar characters. I think U+2062 and similar characters are different
from ZWJ/ZWNJ and other 'control' characters that do have visual effect
in such context as Indic scripts, Arabic script and expressing authorial
intent about ligature in Latin and other scripts)
(2) What's the normative (if there's such a thing) rendering behavior
of a sequence with U+2062-like characters? For instance,
does '<U+0061><U+2062><U+0062>' have to be rendered exactly the same
way as 'ab'? Perhaps, it'd better be left up to implementations.
Some implementations (typographic tradition?) may use different
kerning(?) or add a very thin space between 'a' and 'b'. Others would
just treat them identically.
(3) Is there any way (IF it's allowed) to express the authorial intent
to render U+2062-like characters with visible glyphs?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri May 09 2003 - 07:18:31 EDT