From: Kent Karlsson (kentk@cs.chalmers.se)
Date: Mon Aug 11 2003 - 07:24:41 EDT
> > If this is indeed "The standard way to do what you want", then the
> > standard needs to make it clear that the sequence of
> <space, combining
> > mark> or <NBSP, combining mark> has the properties which I
> want, i.e. it
> > has the width of the combining mark alone, and not the full
> width of a
> > space,
>
> This is up to the implementation and the font, and is not something
> that the Unicode Standard should mandate, IMO. This steps over the
> bound of the plain text content.
I may agree with that, but id does not answer the questions I had
earlier:
How should a freestanding double diacritic be encoded (for purposes of
meta-discussions, and the like): <SPACE, dbl diacritic> or <SPACE, dbl
diacritic, SPACE>? How should combining characters (spacing as well
as non-spacing) that are not vertically centered *roughly* be displayed,
e.g. <SPACE, right-side combining character>, should that *roughly*
be displayed with or without a typographic void to the left of it? So
if I want a space (though not an overgrown one), should one use
<SPACE, SPACE, right-side combining character>? Or even <SPACE,
ZWSP, SPACE, right-side combining character>, to prevent "space
collapse".
And similarly for left-side combining characters. Likewise for defective
combining sequences. If I want a visible pseudo-base, a dotted ring, or
an
underline, the answers are fairly clear, using a suitable character as a
base. But not for the cases above. I don't think that should entirely up
to each font (maker), without any recommendation. (A "should" rather
than a "shall" is quite sufficient.)
/kent k
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Aug 11 2003 - 08:01:20 EDT