From: Peter Kirk (email@example.com)
Date: Thu Sep 09 2004 - 15:41:52 CDT
On 09/09/2004 19:06, Mike Ayers wrote:
> > From: Asmus Freytag [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 08, 2004 6:05 PM
> > At 05:53 PM 9/8/2004, Mike Ayers wrote:
> > Amen. Would that include a discussion of the
> > colored diacritics thing? Does the issue of markup colors
> > vs. font colors even fall on Unicode ground?
> > Should it?
> No, it shouldn't. Unicode deals with characters, not parts of
> characters, despite making use of character composition to form some
> of those characters. As such, getting involved in sub-character
> issues, such as how to color parts of characters, is out of scope.
> That's how I see it. But of course, my vision doesn't mean much.
> What does the UTC see? Is this still then an undecided issue?
No one is talking about colouring part of a *character*, only part of a
combining character sequence, i.e. something which the UTC has decided
should be represented as a sequence of characters, not as an indivisible
A small proportion of these combining character sequences are
alternatively represented as precomposed characters. This doesn't apply
to any of the Hebrew combining character sequences which prompted this
discussion - except for a few for which there are precomposed
presentation forms which are composition exceptions. But these
alternative representations are irrelevant, especially for scripts to
which they do not apply.
-- Peter Kirk email@example.com (personal) firstname.lastname@example.org (work) http://www.qaya.org/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Sep 09 2004 - 15:43:49 CDT