Date: Sat Mar 05 2005 - 21:39:54 CST
How wonderful to hear that you are considering this issue -- whether my
particular ideas are right or wrong, ever implemented or not.
> >But I was told, no, there is simply a better way of doing this: "language
> I don't think anyone has ever encouraged you to use the Unicode language
> tags. This mechanism is available, but is not well defined and not
Oh no! They certainly didn't. I meant "higher level language tags" there!
Note the concept of "two-level nesting" as well. There are some variant forms
of theta *within* the local script used in Ancient Greek city-state X. These
variants default to the standard (most common) theta of that local script
first. Then the whole local script defaults to the standard Greek script.
Useful both for data identity and the practical matter of less-than-complete
glyph sets in fonts.
Peter Kirk wrote:
> I must say I am thinking it would be a good idea to define a subset of
> the 256 variation selectors (already specified as default ignorable) as
> available for private use. (The existing PUA characters are not a good
> substitute as they are not default ignorable.) At least this would be a
> good way for the Unicode community to deal with recurrent issues like
> the ones Doug is repeatedly raising: advice can be given to use the
> Private Use Variation Selectors to select variant glyphs in any way you
> want, as long as you do it only between consenting adults - and the text
> would automatically default to being displayed with the regular glyphs
> by anyone outside the private loop. At the cost of a small number of
> code points, this could get a lot of people off our back, and stop them
> abusing Unicode in more fundamentally damaging ways.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Mar 05 2005 - 21:25:50 CST