Date: Thu Mar 03 2005 - 05:02:42 CST
Asmus Freytag wrote:
> >What I'm discussing is fundamental presentation forms -- the general shape of
> >the character, not the typeface it is styled in.
> And I am declaring that there is no such thing as a sharp dividing line in
> this business.
This is a specious argument. There is clearly a conceptual difference between
"characterhood", "basic presentation form", "typeface", and "typeface
styling". Unicode is entirely based on that reality. You are suggesting it is
an open, and undefinable question whether Helvetica should get codepoints.
It is possible to find some examples that may in practice stride the line
between the conceptual classes.
The Serbian 't' vs. Russian 't' in no way stride a line: they are clearly the
same characterhood, and clearly distinct basic shapes.
The Old Athenian lambda and the standard Greek lambda in no way stride a line:
they are clearly the same characterhood, and clearly distinct basic shapes.
Unicode has as much responsibility to see that some means is provided for the
display of Serbian 't', and Old Athenian lambda, as it has to make sure there
is some means to display not just the basic Indic syllables that get
codepoints, but the needed ligatures as well.
> That term "fundamental presentation form" is nowhere defined. Unicode views
> itself primarily responsible for the encoding of content. In some cases,
> where there is no other way to cause content to be made legible, Unicode
> does include mechanisms on the encoding level.
The Old Athenian presentation forms are not "legible" unless Unicode has
assured that there is a means to display them.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Mar 03 2005 - 04:49:52 CST