Date: Thu Mar 03 2005 - 04:29:48 CST
Asmus Freytag wrote:
> To cut a long discussion to its essence:
> At 09:08 AM 3/2/2005, UList@dfa-mail.com wrote:
> >11. *Therefore*, some kind of "custom language tag" system is a
> >*requirement*, for Unicode to function as it is claimed it is *intended*
> >to function.
> Fraktur is a variant of Latin (sharing many aspects of what you discussed
> in your points 1-10, which I will not repeat here), but it is not accessed
> via a language tag, but via font shift.
You've chosen a clever example of course, as Fraktur is so divergent from
Roman that it nearly did separate historically into a distinct script. But it
didn't quite -- and today is classified just as a typeface style with lots of ornamentation.
What I'm discussing is fundamental presentation forms -- the general shape of
the character, not the typeface it is styled in.
You can do a Russian-Cyrillic 't' in a Fraktur-look, and a Serbian-Cyrillic
't' in a Fractur-look, and they are different.
Unicode is not responsible for seeing that there is some means of displaying
But Unicode is responsible for seeing that there is some means of displaying
fundamental presentation forms.
Your attempt to wiggle Unicode out of responsibility for the issue I have
brought up has therefore not been successful.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Mar 03 2005 - 04:16:57 CST