From: John Hudson (tiro@tiro.com)
Date: Tue Jul 29 2003 - 14:08:01 EDT
At 06:27 AM 7/29/2003, Ted Hopp wrote:
>Based on the SII response, it sounds like either doing nothing (within
>Unicode proper) or developing Ken's CGJ proposal are the leading contenders
>at this point.
As stated previously, I'm reasonably happy with CGJ as a re-ordering
inhibitor *if* the invisible glyph is reliably painted so that it can be
used in font substitution or positioning lookups. If it is not painted,
this solution is as much of a non-starter as control characters. Seriously:
display requires operations in glyph space, and this cannot be done if
glyphs are not painted. Perhaps the UTC needs to clarify the definition of
CGJ to make it explicit that this 'combining mark' should be painted and
not treated like a control character?
I say that I am 'reasonably happy' because I still feel sorry for the
Biblical scholars who will need to deal with CGJ in text strings: who will
need to remember to enter it if they don't want their marks to be reordered
in normalisation, who will need to remember its possible impact of search
operations, etc.
I also feel sorry for all the Hebrew font developers who are going to have
to update their fonts, but that was likely whatever the solution.
John Hudson
Tiro Typeworks www.tiro.com
Vancouver, BC tiro@tiro.com
The sight of James Cox from the BBC's World at One,
interviewing Robin Oakley, CNN's man in Europe,
surrounded by a scrum of furiously scribbling print
journalists will stand for some time as the apogee of
media cannibalism.
- Emma Brockes, at the EU summit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jul 29 2003 - 15:08:12 EDT