From: Mark Davis (email@example.com)
Date: Tue May 13 2003 - 10:59:21 EDT
The default mappings in the font for all Default Ignorable Code Points
should be to a zero-width invisible glyph: that is the expected
appearance when printing and in a WYSIWYG editor.
I agree that it would be good to have alternate, visible glyphs
available for a "Show Hidden" mode, but these glyphs don't actually
have to be duplicated in each font; the editing code can use a special
font when that mode is turned on.
IBM, MS 50-2/B11, 5600 Cottle Rd, SJ CA 95193
fax: (408) 256-0799
----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrew C. West" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2003 04:49
Subject: Re: visible glyphs for U+2062 and similar characters
> On Mon, 12 May 2003 20:44:14 +0000, email@example.com wrote:
> > Visible glyphs for control characters can be useful in plain text
> > editing/input and for filling out Unicode charts. But, if this is
> > messing things up for other applications, those glyphs could be
> > removed from Code2000.
> I think that it is a good idea for fonts to provide visible glyphs
> characters (as do many fonts, not only Code2000), and it should be
up to the
> rendering engine to not display an invisible character where it is
> to be displayed visibly.
> For example, Code2000 provides visible glyphs for U+180B through
> [MONGOLIAN FREE VARIATION SELECTOR ONE ... THREE]. With the latest
> Uniscribe the visible glyphs for FVS1..3 are displayed when the
> in isolation or set within non-Mongolian text, but when the
characters are set
> within Mongolian text Uniscribe does not render FVS1..3 at all (i.e.
> invisible). This behaviour is extremely useful :
> 1) It allows invisible characters to be invisible when set in the
> context (e.g. within running Mongolian text for FVS1..3)
> 2) It allows visible representation of invisible characters in
> applications, etc.
> 3) It allows visible representations of invisible glyphs in
> 4) It allows the user to easily notice cases where an invisible
> been inadvertently placed or left in an inappropriate textual
> Similar behaviour could be implemented for U+2062 [INVISIBLE TIMES]
> invisible characters by the rendering engine (e.g. do not render
> numbers, elsewhere render the visible glyph).
> In short, visible glyphs for invisible characters are indeed useful
> contexts, and I would be sorry to see them disappear from Code2000.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue May 13 2003 - 11:59:34 EDT