From: Philippe Verdy (verdy_p@wanadoo.fr)
Date: Wed Dec 17 2003 - 14:13:19 EST
> Philippe Verdy wrote:
> > > #code;cc;nfd;nfkdFolded; # CHAR?; NFD?; NFKDFOLDED?;
> > > # RIAL SIGN
> > > fdfc;;;<isolated> 0631 06cc 0627 0644; # ??; ?; ?????;
I should have disabled temporarily my email filter to send this one. All
UTF-8 codes were replaced by ISO-8859-1 characters, substituing '?' instead
of Arabic characters...
I hope that the codepoints that I gave explicitly will still make my message
readable...
Well in your message you comment on the form shown in the charts, and I
don't criticize them.
I was just wondering if their rendering in Arial Unicode MS is correct and
conforming to the required need to keep the interpretation, and in what
measure the beautiful ligatures found in Unicode charts are normative, as
there's a very large difference with what Arial Unicde MS does, with a
distinct character layout, and no ligature, no kerning kashidas, and in some
cases not even the contextual shaping of its embedded letters, so that the
"Arial Unicode MS" font render these ligatures as their NFKD decomposition
rendered in a single square.
This may be valid if this was just a ligature, but in that case, why aren'
those decomposition canonical like the ffi ligature ?
__________________________________________________________________
<< ella for Spam Control >> has removed Spam messages and set aside
Newsletters for me
You can use it too - and it's FREE! http://www.ellaforspam.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Dec 17 2003 - 15:27:04 EST