From: Asmus Freytag (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sat Mar 27 2004 - 20:09:24 EST
At 05:32 PM 3/26/2004, John Cowan wrote:
>Asmus Freytag scripsit:
> > Another drawback is the fact that
> > too few systems handle any variation selectors gracefully.
>Well, at least they should be easy to handle in fonts: add the selectors
>to the font as invisible characters, and then create mandatory ligatures
>for the standardized variants.
Well Unicode isn't something that's limited to fonts.
There's the whole input side, which is not a trivial thing, and then there's
all the little services, rountines, processes and procedures that manipulate
strings. It's not clear how they should be adapted to deal with these
This can be tricky esp,. when the user doesn't know a VS is present and the
font used to view the data doesn't have an alternate glyph.
Should comparison, by default, ignore VS? If, yes, then there's a whole lot
of legacy out there that doesn't do the right thing. If no, then there will
be a lot of users not getting the expected result.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Mar 27 2004 - 20:50:11 EST