From: Asmus Freytag (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Fri Feb 18 2005 - 15:24:11 CST
At 12:55 PM 2/18/2005, D. Starner wrote:
>I deem solution D absolutely infeasable, as it will provoke severe
> > compatibility problems between standard, and non-standard, captalizing.
>I fail to understand why. For the sake of discussion, let's call it Latin
>Letter Bob. Why does Latin Capital Letter Bob, which happens to downcase to
>Latin Capital Letter Sharp-S, but doesn't roundtrip under normal rules, change
Let's not. That was the proposal as it had been before the UTC and it did
get rejected there. The discussion on alternative "D" should not be
re-opened unless there is significant new information or significant
difference in some of its technical detail.
Neither one seems to be the case, so that all we'd accomplish is go over
the same ground again.
In contrast, the information collected during this discussion makes it
worthwhile to bring proposal "C" before the UTC.
Proposal 'B' is really outside the scope of the UTC and therefore de-facto
equivalent to 'A' (do-nothing). In general, I must say, I dislike declaring
an issue a 'mere glyph problem', when the effective result is that there is
no standard way for users to achieve what they are after.
What I'm trying to say, is that the 'character-glyph' model really has two
sides to it, and that (ideally) standardization on the character level and
on the font/rich text level go hand in hand so that for every given feature
there can be a standard way of achieving it.
As always, it's edge cases like this, where it's not clear which technology
will provide the means of representing the distinction, that cause most of
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Feb 18 2005 - 15:25:14 CST