Date: Tue Mar 01 2005 - 21:24:35 CST
Peter Constable wrote:
> BTW, I don't rule out the use of variation selectors for variants in
> archaic text. That's quite a different matter from Serbian. That's not
> to say I think VSs should be handed out liberally.
[Quietly so thrilled.]
Not that I'd complain about having an official VS standard established for Greek...
But as that does mean a lot more work for Unicode, and it's hard to herd cats
(that is, get everyone in a field to agree *if* variants should be officially
encoded, and *which* variants should be officially encoded) -- perhaps some
"user-optional" VS-type codepoints would be less of a hassle from Unicode's perspective.
Though *if* you could just access glyph variant sets in a smart from a Web
page, Unicode wouldn't have to be bothered (and bothersome) in any way.
Which is making this look very appealing at the moment (must be able to handle
all smart font formats though):
Adam Twardoch wrote:
> From: "Peter Constable" <email@example.com>
> > Unfortunately, no: AFAIK there is no convention solution
> > for representing font features within HTML or CSS.
> > One issue in overcoming that is that different font
> > technologies have different approaches to font features.
> GlyphGate uses a custom extension property to CSS, text-otl:
> I might be a good idea to elaborate on this and submit it to the W3
> Consortium for inclusion in the official CSS spec.l
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Mar 01 2005 - 21:11:19 CST