Re: Uppercase variant of U+00DF LATIN SMA LL LETTER SHARP S ("German sharp s", "▀" )

From: Patrick Andries (patrick.andries@xcential.com)
Date: Thu Feb 17 2005 - 14:27:39 CST

  • Next message: Alexander Savenkov: "Re[2]: IDN Security"

    Asmus Freytag a Úcrit :

    > At 07:19 AM 2/17/2005, Patrick Andries wrote:
    >
    >> PRE▀BURG is the equivalent of small caps for me of Pre▀burg. I
    >> believe Unicode does not regulate small caps forms...
    >
    >
    > Unicode does not regulate small caps forms, but I disagree with your
    > analogy.

    And you are right to disagree if you understood my badly constructed
    sentence as meaning that PRE▀BURG was an orthographic small caps. I
    meant that it is a font transformation which is not regulated by Unicode
    (just like small caps) and I don't see why Unicode should consider it
    (just like it does not consider small caps forms of currently encoded
    letters).

    >
    >
    > For titles, there are often styles that transform the spelling of the
    > text as well as set style attributes. For example, the document may
    > contain "Pre▀burg", but a title style would transform this to ALL
    > UPPERCASE and then apply a specific font.

    I was tempted to suggest a "titl" feature in OpenType that would do this
    (and map a to A but ▀ to ▀ if the font-designer so wishes),
    unfortunately I think this "titl" feature takes capitals as input.

    > Since the default casing does not work in this context, you would need
    > a specific
    > transform, one that does not change ▀ to SS. Given that, creating a
    > specific transform that changes ▀ to FE00 followed by ▀ is not any
    > more difficult.

    True. But how long does it take for this variant selector to be approved
    and included in Unicode ? I would guess much more time than add the
    glyph to a font and having the user select a discretionary ligature in a
    font for this SS (but then again Word and Latin ligature substitutions..).

    P. A.



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Feb 17 2005 - 14:28:56 CST