Date: Thu Mar 03 2005 - 02:44:46 CST
Dean Snyder wrote:
> I, for one, do indeed plan on using period-specific glyphs in Unicode
> cuneiform (when they become available - right now we have only UR III and
> Neo-Assyrian glyphs), but this will be rightfully relegated to the
> variable font level, i.e., above the plain text level.
Your initial post seemed to argue furiously against my idea of the "script
continuum" as a concept. But as you have begun implementing it yourself with
your multiple period-specific glyphs, I assume that was a confusion.
You now seem to be supporting multiple local glyph variants, rather than one
standardized script for all texts in your field.
So we are in complete agreement on the use of multiple local glyph sets
aligned to one set of primary codepoints -- in contrast to others who advocate
promiscuous multiple sets of primary codepoints, or use of the PUA.
This "script continuum" we both advocate can be done with boxes of metal type.
The question of how the spectrum of sets of variant glyphs are contained and
selected with computer technology is a side issue.
I personally believe character-level selection is optimal for data integrity
Second best, simply for convenience, is putting the multiple glyph sets in one
font, and being able to select them with something like language tags or CSS.
The third option of multiple independent fonts is usable, but has some serious
drawbacks -- a possibly large collection of fonts to distribute and keep
organized, and the theoretical problem of a handheld device with one single
Unicode font installed.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Mar 03 2005 - 02:30:50 CST