Re: Conflicting principles

From: Philippe Verdy (
Date: Fri Aug 08 2003 - 20:31:02 EDT

  • Next message: Kenneth Whistler: "Re: Conflicting principles"

    On Saturday, August 09, 2003 1:33 AM, Michael Everson <> wrote:

    > At 01:18 +0200 2003-08-09, Philippe Verdy wrote:
    > > Such break in a middle of a multiple width diacritic exist in some
    > > notations, and are not considered "horrible typography". Just look
    > > at musical notations where a upper horizontal parenthesis
    > > is used to group some elements [...]
    > Music setting is not typesetting, and that kind of music
    > representation is outside of the scope of the Unicode Standard.

    This was just an example, but a significant one which is also used
    in text with similarities; look at box grouping characters, acting like
    parentheses in hieroglyphs, or the thick line above characters used
    to mark their "color", and even about the underlining style (not really
    plain text, but very close to it.

    OK music setting is not text setting, but there are many links
    between various notational systems, where signs, symbols or marks
    are imported from each other, that would just simply demonstrate
    that diacritics may be actually broken and splitted across lines,
    without necessarily be thought as an "horrible" typesetting.

    Line breaking by itself is not plain-text. It's a rendering effect more or
    less described, enabled, forced or disabled for the representation of
    the rest of the plain text. If one thinks about it, there may be other
    representations that exhibit a glyph for a puctuation mark and no
    other specific code defined as it's device specific and in many cases
    unpredictable. It could even be completely removed from a
    Braille or Teletype strip band used to represent the same text, and
    Unicode can be used in other contexts than just text setting on a
    bidimensional surface. Typesetting rules are not Unicode rules, so
    they are also out of scope of the standard, and so I see no good
    reason to qualify as "horrible" a possible typesettig representation
    of a perfectly valid and nondefective Unicode encoded sequence.

    I admit that you are extremely interested in the correct typesetting
    of Unicode due to your huge activities in the design of fonts, and
    I won't criticize your expertize in that domain, but this domain is not

    Spams non tolérés: tout message non sollicité sera
    rapporté à vos fournisseurs de services Internet.

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Aug 08 2003 - 20:57:53 EDT